Dargavel Consult Report ECSPB
Renfrewshire Council · 23 May 2024
Back to Education and Children's Services Policy Board — 23 May 2024 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
___________________________________________________________________ To: Education and Children’s Services Policy Board On: 23 May 2024 __________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Children’s Services _________________________________________________________________ Heading: Consultation arrangements regarding the proposal to establish a new primary school in Dargavel Village and a Catchment Review Affecting Dargavel Primary School and a new primary school to be built at Dargavel Village 1. Summary 1.1. At Education and Children’s services policy board on Thursday 18 January 2024, elected members agreed to proceed with a statutory consultation, in accordance with the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, on a proposal to establish a new primary school in Dargavel village. the proposal included a proposed site for the new primary school - an 8.5-acre site at the north end of Craigton drive (denoted as site 9 (E1) within the consultation proposal), and revised catchment areas for the existing Dargavel primary school and the proposed new school. The report confirmed an anticipated opening date for a new primary school by August 2027. 1.2. The Education and Children’s Services Policy Board also authorised the Director of Children’s Services, or another appropriate officer nominated by her, to take such action as is required to carry that consultation through to completion, in accordance with the legal requirements. 1.3. The Education and Children’s Services Policy Board also noted that provision for denominational pupils within Dargavel Village will remain unchanged within the St.John Bosco Primary School catchment area. 1.4. Officers confirmed that a report on the outcome of the consultation would be submitted to the education and children’s services policy board on 23rd May 2024. The consultation proposal and supporting information can be found at Appendix 1A. 1.5. The statutory consultation started on Monday 29 January, and ended on Tuesday 26 March and followed a period of pre-engagement space planning on a new primary school. The consultation was extensively promoted and
Page 2
provided a programme of information events and public meetings to enable people to speak to council officers, to seek further information and to participate in the consultation which is expanded on in more detail in the main body of this report. In total, over 150 people attended consultation events, but many more completed the consultation survey. 1.6. Online Survey findings 1.6.1. At the close of the consultation, the council had received 848 responses to the online survey. After removing duplication, this reduced to 818 survey responses (817 online and one in paper form). Additionally, there were 15 responses by email from 13 people. A quantitative analysis was undertaken by Council Officers, with further qualitative analysis undertaken in two stages. An independent consultant was commissioned to provide sentiment analysis of the textual responses and to understand where there was most divergence of opinion and why. In addition, council officers provided a further analysis of all comments made by respondents to understand interdependencies and common themes. The detail of the analysis can be found in Appendices 1K and 1L. 1.6.2. The main findings confirm overwhelming support for a new school with 87.1% of all respondents in support. The proposed site split respondents almost evenly, with 40.6% opposition and 39.6% in support and 19.8% who did not express a preference. Analysis of the textual responses does not produce a clear alternative to the proposed site. The proposed catchment also split respondents with 44% (357) who strongly agree or agree with the proposed catchment, 43.6% (354) who did not express a preference and 12% (100) disagreed or strongly disagreed. 1.6.3. The most frequently mentioned topics raised in textual responses, within the scope of the consultation, include an urgent need for a new primary school and universal concerns regarding traffic and travel issues that need to be addressed. Over a third of respondents referenced high school provision as a pressing issue and although outwith the consultation scope, those responses have been recorded and detailed in the report. Other topics raised include ongoing frustration in relation to the Council’s previous error and concern about the Council’s current engagement, planning and decision-making processes in relation to the Dargavel development. An independent, qualitative analysis of the textual responses can be found at Appendix IK. 1.7. Education Scotland 1.7.1. In accordance with the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), Education Scotland attended two public meetings that were part of the statutory consultation, and a Report was prepared by His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HM Inspectors). Their Report provides an independent and impartial consideration of the proposal to build a new primary school in Dargavel Village including the proposed site and proposed catchment review. Education Scotland were provided with the survey findings of the statutory consultation, feedback captured at Information Exchange Evenings and meeting minutes and a transcript of the recording of each of the two public meetings.
Page 3
1.7.2. Renfrewshire Council received the final report from Education Scotland on Monday 22 April, which confirmed HM Inspectors agree that the proposal has the potential to provide educational benefits and that a new primary school will address the need for increased non-denominational primary places in Dargavel Village. Additionally, the Report made recommendations to address that are consistent concerns raised by the community through the consultation and directly with Education Scotland. Those include providing safe active travel routes to the school, safely managing an increase in traffic at drop-off and pick-up times at both the new school and Dargavel Primary School, engaging with the community ongoing through the design and delivery of the new school, and ensuring contingency planning should the delivery of the new school be delayed. The Education Scotland report can be found at Appendix 1M. 1.8. The purpose of this report is to provide the policy board with an overview and analysis of the outputs from the consultation process and recommendations which are reflective of the key areas of concern provided in the course of the consultation exercise. The statutory consultation final report is included as Appendix 1 to this document and will be published on the Council website. All other relevant documents are appended to that report. _______________________________________________ ___________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 The Education and Children’s services policy board is asked to: • Note the findings of the Statutory Consultation on a new primary school in Dargavel and the proposed changes to catchment areas, • Note the report by Education Scotland, prepared by His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HM Inspectors) in accordance with the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). • Note the overwhelming support for a new school and HM Inspectors’ view that the Proposal has the potential to provide education benefits and address the under-provision within Dargavel Village. • Approve the proposed statutory consultation final report attached at appendix 1. • Agree that officers progress the procurement, design, and construction programme to deliver a new 800-capacity primary school, for opening in August 2027, on the proposed site ‘Site 9 – E1’, as denoted in the Statutory Consultation documentation and map. • Agree that officers progress planning for the implementation of the revised catchment arrangements within Dargavel Village to take effect from the operational opening of the new primary school. • Agree that officers will progress the following key areas of work: 1. In conjunction with the Dargavel community, prepare and implement a comprehensive engagement plan to ensure ongoing
Page 4
community engagement through the school design and planning processes. 2. Preparation of an integrated traffic and active travel plan as part of the design and delivery of the new school to alleviate community concerns relating to traffic congestion and safe active travel routes. Members note that such planning and preparation arrangements will be a requirement to support the statutory planning application for the new school. 3. Provide a report to a future Education and Childrens Services Policy Board on proposed contingency plans, should there be any delay to construction that would impact the anticipated August 2027 opening date. 4. Provide a report to a future Policy Board with detailed options and costs to deliver revised drop-off and pick-up area next to the current Dargavel Primary School. 5. Continue to engage with the community and work in an open and responsive way to plan for future secondary school provision. _____________________________________________ ___________ 3. Statutory consultation publicity and events 3.1. The statutory consultation started on Monday 29 January, and ended on Tuesday 26 March. This followed a period of pre-engagement that involved focus groups (24 individuals) and a resident survey (524 responses) to consider space planning for a new primary school and to consider the needs of pupils, parents, and carers, the wider community and school staff from the earliest outset. 3.2. Following the January Education and Children’s Services Policy Board, and to publicise the consultation, the Council wrote to local parents and members of the Dargavel community newsletter (519 individuals) to make them aware of the launch date on Monday 29 January. From 29 January, a comprehensive publicity plan was activated to promote a series of public information events and to encourage people to attend and to participate in the consultation. 3.3. All statutory consultees were contacted in writing with a link to a dedicated webpage and an invitation to attend the public events. These included parents and carers of pupils at Dargavel, Bishopton, St John Bosco primary schools; staff and trade unions at the affected schools; parent councils of those schools; elected members; the local community council and community planning partnership; community groups who use the existing Dargavel Primary School; and those who we expect may attend the new school - parents and carers at Dargavel early learning and childcare centre, families who had registered a child to start P1 at Dargavel Primary in summer 2024, and later in the process we contacted parents and carers living in Dargavel or Bishopton who had registered a child for a funded nursery place starting from summer 2023. We also issued emails to the heads of other private or partner nurseries in the areas with a request to share with their parents and carers.
Page 5
3.4. The consultation webpage on the council website included the formal proposal paper, supporting information and details of the planned information evenings, public meetings, and informal drop-in sessions, along with information on what the public could expect from each, and how to book. It also provided details of how members of the public could submit their views directly and an outline of the decision-making process which would follow the consultation. 3.5. Paper copies of the proposal paper and supporting information were made available at local schools, at Bishopton Library, and at council HQ at Renfrewshire House in Paisley. Parents at Dargavel and Bishopton Primaries were contacted directly by the schools to make them aware of the times where senior officers were hosting informal drop-in sessions at those schools. Public notices were also placed in the local media to advertise the consultation and public events. 3.6. Follow up communications to the groups listed above were activated on 8 February, 23 February, 13 March and 21 March. To help reach any groups not covered by the above or who are not online, the distribution of information flyers was organised in late February. This was issued to all postcodes for Dargavel and Bishopton Primary School catchment areas to encourage completion of the online survey. Posters covering the same information were also distributed to key venues throughout the community. 3.7. The public event programme was designed to be inclusive and accessible, ensuring several local touchpoints for the community, scheduled at various times, with opportunities to meet with senior officers and find out more about the proposal. The service sought advice on the design of the events from industry experts, The Consultation Institute, to ensure engagement was effective and could reach as many people as possible. In total, over 150 people attended an event within the programme: • Informal drop-in sessions for existing parents and carers at Dargavel and Bishopton Primaries (at school drop-off and pick-up times). These were attended by 40 people. • Four information exchange evenings at Dargavel Primary School to allow the community to meet senior officers in an informal setting and discuss topics like site selection, transport and travel, and school construction, capacity, and operations. Total attendance across the four sessions was 62. • Two public meetings took place where officers were able to feedback on issues raised at the information sessions and invite questions from the public. A representative from Education Scotland attended the meetings. Total attendance across the two events was 57. • Engagement took place at Dargavel Primary School and Bishopton Primary School with pupils and staff. • Meetings were also held with Dargavel Parent Council, Bishopton Parent Council, Bishopton Community Council, and representatives from Dargavel Residents Association
Page 6
___________________________________________________________________ 4. Analysis of the Key Findings 4.1. As mentioned in paragraph 4.5, an independent consultant was commissioned by Renfrewshire Council to provide a qualitative analysis of the textual responses within the consultation survey. This involved sentiment analysis and understanding the reasons for comments expressed and what particular positions or arguments might be most significant. This report can be found at Appendix 1K. In addition, a quantitative analysis was carried out by council officers (Appendix 1L) 4.2. The consultation questionnaire received a broad response with 818 surveys analysed (817 online surveys and one written survey). A further 13 people responded to the council by email (15) and those responses were included in the analysis. Most survey respondents did not attend an information exchange evening or a public meeting to seek more information from officers. 4.3. The analysis of responses considers both the content and sentiment of all comments without citing responses directly from respondents. The over- arching findings are as follows: • There is overwhelming support for a new school, with 87.1% of all respondents in support. 618 of those who responded ‘strongly support’ a new school (75.4% of all respondents) and another 96 (11.8%) ‘support’ it. The combined total of those who ‘oppose’ a new school is 77 (9.4%). • Views are almost evenly split on the proposed site for a new school, with those who ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ marginally exceeding the number ‘agreeing’ or ‘strongly agreeing’ and a substantial number who did not express a preference. 40.6% of respondents stated they were against the proposed site (331) and 39.6% stated they were for the proposed site (323), a difference of 1%. 19.8% (161) identified themselves as ‘neither agreeing nor disagreeing’ with the proposed site. • Across all consultation responses, here is no widespread consensus on an alternative site. 313 respondents to the consultation (38%) made an alternative site suggestion when prompted, with 196 people (24%) referencing a specific site or location: • 119 (14.6%) referenced the Slateford Road area. This included those specifically stating Sites 22 or 23 – currently identified as greenbelt, and those whose site or area description could reasonably be assumed to identify Sites 22 or 23. Of those, 105 of these respondents had previously stated they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed site for a new primary school. • 77 (9.4%) respondents suggested one of 21 other specific sites or locations as alternatives to consider. • A further 117 (14%) respondents made a general location comment or indicated a site characteristic e.g. ‘in Bishopton’ or ‘further away’.
Page 7
Those who agree with the proposed site opposed alternative sites for reasons such as accessibility and deliverability, particularly those encroaching on green spaces or located outside of Dargavel Village. • More people support the proposed catchment than those who are opposed and an equal number expressed no preference. The proposed catchment split respondents with 44% (357) who ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with the proposed catchment and 43.6% (354) who did not express a preference. 12% (100) ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’. • There is consensus amongst respondents on important issues that must be resolved by the council to ensure that a new primary school fully meets the needs of the school community and wider community, and on the need to provide reassurance that demand for secondary provision will be fully and appropriately met. These topics and concerns were expressed by respondents regardless of their support for a new primary school or preference (or stated no preference) for where the school is located. • By far the most frequently expressed opinion - by all those who responded to the survey, is the urgent need for a new school to meet rising demand. Respondents highlighted the pressing need for more primary places to be provided within the catchment to avoid children being separated and schooled at various primary schools with capacity. • 36% of all respondents (296) either reference or are advocating for a new high school/shared campus whether they agreed/strongly agreed (67) or disagreed/strongly disagreed (172) with the proposed site or have no preference (57). The sentiment behind this was strongly expressed. Of the 172 who reference high school/shared campus and disagree with the proposed site, 60 referenced the Slateford Road area as their alternative. • There are frequently expressed concerns about safe travel and traffic linked to the proposed site. 35% of all respondents (288) expressed this concern whether they agreed/strongly agreed (49) or disagreed/strongly disagreed (197) with the proposed site or have no preference (42). This concern was strongly expressed. Conversely, many of those who support the proposed site have said they believe it will ease traffic congestion by reducing cross-travel from the north of the development and will be more walkable and central to catchment, and therefore increase active travel. • Issues continue to be raised with the council’s (current and previous) planning, governance, and transparency in relation to the school provision in Dargavel. • Respondents in all groups expressed the importance of ensuring community amenity within the new school. The design and operation of the school must ensure the community have access for community use. • Smaller groups highlighted various topics and issues such as noise and light pollution, needing the proposed site for housing, or the loss of a Central Park – though there is no proposal to locate the school on the Central Park. _
Page 8
• Those who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposed site (331 respondents) were asked to provide a reason for their answer. Those who subsequently responded, cited the following reasons: • 67% are concerned about traffic, congestion, parking, other road infrastructure and associated issues with safety of children as their main reason for disagreement and do not believe their concerns have yet been addressed in relation to the proposed site. • 19% are advocating for a new high school/campus and would prefer an alternative site to accommodate this. • 7.9% remain concerned about the council’s governance, planning and decision making in relation to school provision for Dargavel Village. • 5.7% want the new school to be either co-located with the current primary school or close to it (including the possibility of rebuilding the current school). __________________________________________________________________ 5. Addressing and providing reassurance on common issues raised 5.1. The most common issues that have emerged from the consultation process and reflected in the recommendations made by Education Scotland, are concerns within the community. Respondents express significant strength of feeling when citing those issues. However, there is confidence that such issues can be fully addressed to alleviate understandable community concerns and the council is committed to doing everything it can to do so. 5.2. Urgent need for a new school to meet rising demand 5.2.1. Subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation, officers have confirmed a programme timeline to meet an August 2027 opening date. Hub West Scotland have been engaged to deliver the project and have been progressing a wide range of planning activities to support delivery of a new school for some time. The Hub West Scotland model, procurement process and pre-established supply chain arrangements supports tighter procurement and delivery programme than a traditionally delivered project. Based on planning arrangements progressed to date and progress being made by BAE systems in respect to delivery of remediation and infrastructure programming, there remains confidence that the August 2027 date continues to be a deliverable timeline for the project. 5.3. Safe active travel and traffic/congestion concerns 5.3.1. Road traffic volumes, congestion concerns and the availability of safe active travel routes to the existing and the proposed new school site were the most recurring and consistent themes of concern expressed during the consultation events with the local community.
Page 9
5.3.2. It was anticipated that concerns of this nature were likely to emerge through the consultation process based on the extent they had featured in earlier pre- engagement activity carried out by officers with the community. In this context a planned independent transport and travel study was commissioned (carried out by Stantec) in January 2024 to assess both the existing situation within the development and to model the impact of the proposed new school site on the capacity of the transport infrastructure across the Dargavel village as it is completed. 5.3.3. The traffic modelling undertaken as part of the study provided reassurance that that the existing road infrastructure planned to be delivered by BAE systems will accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by trips to and from both primary schools without any capacity issues arising on either the overall road network, or with traffic volumes passing through key junctions in the development. This provides a level of assurance that the flow of traffic within the development will not experience congestion issues due to capacity demand linked to peak school time travel. 5.3.4. The Stantec study also explored considerations in respect to traffic related issues in and about the immediately vicinity of both schools, which can present different challenges beyond overall road and junction capacity. The study assessed the travel modes currently used to access Dargavel Primary School, noting that existing active travel to the school already performs comparably with the Renfrewshire primary school average as summarised below: • The overall proportion of pupils walking or using park and stride to get to school is lower than the Renfrewshire average, but the proportion cycling and scooting / skating is higher meaning that the overall proportion of pupils using active travel is 69%, the same as the Renfrewshire average. • The proportion of pupils being driven to school is slightly less than the Renfrewshire average at 21%, compared to 24%. Mode Share Comparison versus Renfrewshire Average
Page 10
5.3.5. In relation to those driving to the school, Stantec traffic surveys and monitoring identified a high proportion navigating into the school car park and making use of the drop-off area and not staying for long – as the school design intended. However, they also monitored some cars parking, pavement mounted on the north side of Arrochar Drive between the school “keep clear markings” and the signalised junction with Barrangary Road. This results in Arrochar Drive being reduced to effectively one vehicle lane in this area, with a requirement for “give and go”, and with the parking impinging on pedestrian use of footpaths and clear lines of visibility. Similarly, drivers were also seen park on the footways within the residential streets accessed off Arrochar Drive, blocking walking routes and again impinging on pedestrians. 5.3.6. The Stantec study notes however that the existing primary school is currently supporting housing across the whole development area, including a significant proportion of housing to the north of the development that is beyond a 15-minute walking distance from the school. It also noted housing to the north of the development is impacted by incomplete travel infrastructure that will eventually link the north of the village to the south of the development where the school is located. Additionally, Arrochar Drive is currently operating as a no through road, as the internal loop (Western Link Road) has not been fully constructed. It is expected that the WLR will be constructed by BAE by October 2025. The Stantec study notes that the absence the completed loop road (WLR) has likely encouraged more driven trips and traffic to and from the existing school from housing sites on the north side of the village and that some of the existing traffic issues associated with a high number of car-based trips to and from Dargavel Primary School are exacerbated by these factors. 5.3.7. This undoubtedly contributes to existing issues with vehicle parking around the current school location and this is reflected in the concerns expressed by the community through the consultation response in relation to traffic and safe active travel routes to school. 5.3.8. It is critical moving forward that effective engagement and communication is maintained with the community to evidence that a second school at site E1 and the existing Dargavel Primary school will provide school facilities that are highly connected to their associated catchments and that those connections represent a safe environment for travelling to and from the school sites, irrespective of the mode of travel chosen. 5.3.9. It is critical to consider how in the short-term traffic issues at the current school can be resolved and to ensure that concerns relating to traffic congestion and safe active travel linked to the new school’s proposed location can be adequately and appropriately addressed in the design and delivery planning of the new school. 5.3.10. First and foremost, it is important to recognise that delivery of the second school and implementation of the revised catchments changes, along with delivery of the full village infrastructure (both road and active travel) by BAE Systems will deliver high active travel connectivity and travel times to both schools.
Page 11
5.3.11. Dargavel Primary School’s catchment will significantly reduce in geographical size and the positioning of site E1 was selected specifically to maximise the opportunity to deliver the shortest active travel distances within its catchment. Detailed travel modelling has been completed by Stantec that confirms the following active travel times for both schools. 5.3.12. This modelling confirms that both schools will have short commute times, providing a high level of opportunity for active travel to school and reduced need for travel by car. As outlined above, the existing school catchment by contrast has a significant proportion of houses materially outwith a 15- minute walking distance which Stantec have noted this will likely have encouraged a greater level of travel by car. 5.3.13. In addition, officers have engaged with Stantec during the course of their study to review a number of considerations that would further enhance safe active travel to both schools, improve arrangements for drop-off and pick-up by car at Dargavel Primary School and identify design factors to be carefully considered in the delivery of a new school on the proposed site. It will be critical such issues are progressed in a manner which aligns with the overall communication and engagement plan set out in the recommendations. 5.3.14. Engagement with BAE Systems is underway to jointly progress planning access and travel routes for the new school site as part of the school and site design. This will carefully consider planned and enhanced active travel infrastructure that BAE Systems will deliver and the design of a school site with multiple access and egress points to minimise distances to housing developments in the surrounding catchment area. 5.3.15. In addition, it will be critical for there to be coordinated and pro-active joint travel planning between both primary schools and the community to support and champion active travel arrangements. 5.3.16. It is accepted that travel by car is unavoidable for some parents and carers at drop-off and pick-up times and adequate design and capacity for parking and drop-off/pick-up arrangements is a key requirement that will be planned into the new school site design, informed by best practice design principles, community engagement and from learning from other similar school sites across the country. This will include exploring traffic control measures in and
Page 12
around the immediate vicinity of the school. Demonstrating well developed, assessed and appropriate arrangements for traffic and travel to and from the school site will be a key requirement that will support the statutory planning application. 5.3.17. In addition, and in recognition of the observed issues being experienced at the current school site, officers are progressing an option appraisal for improved drop-off and pick-up arrangements utilising the flexibility provided through available land secured from BAE systems adjacent to Dargavel Primary School whilst wider travel infrastructure is completed by BAE Systems and revised catchments are implemented as the new school is delivered. A report in this regard will be brought back to the Education and Childrens Services Policy Board for consideration. 5.4. Ensure community amenity and community access within the new school 5.4.1. Pre-engagement space planning captured the overwhelming support from the community to deliver a school with the highest quality learning environment and which supports flexible community use outwith school hours (98% of those involved in pre-engagement supported the community having access to the school for a variety of activities – outdoor sport, fitness and exercise classes, social activities, children and toddler groups, adult learning classes, health and wellbeing support. 5.4.2. Officers can confirm this will be integral to the design, and a full size, floodlight synthetic sport pitch with changing facilities is incorporated into the planned school provision and site 9 E1 provides sufficient flexible land to support community facilities. Further engagement with the community, including local groups and sports clubs will take place during the design process to maintain focus on community demand. In addition, following feedback from the Dargavel community through the consultation process, officers are working with the community to determine the best route to support and meet community sports pitch needs whilst the new school-based facility is delivered, and this will include consideration of how other existing pitch provision can be best utilised to meet current and future need. 5.5. High school provision/joint campus development – Outwith scope of consultation 5.5.1. High school provision is not within the scope of the consultation. However it is recognised that officers must continue to engage the community and work in an open and responsive way to plan for future secondary school provision . A new high school or joint primary/secondary campus were referenced by over a third of respondents as important considerations for the Council, and this included those who support the proposal for a new primary school on the proposed site. Importantly, future high school provision for west Renfrewshire is integral to the Council’s strategic learning estate review which will consider long term demand profiles across Renfrewshire, as well as renewal and replacement priorities and options for the primary and high school estate across Renfrewshire. An engagement programme will support this long-term review and will ensure the views of all communities are represented, including Dargavel and Bishopton communities. This includes existing and ongoing engagement in relation to the plans to extend Park Mains High School and the
Page 13
regular updating of school rolls and long term school roll projections for Park Mains High School and implications of these.. 5.5.2. It should be noted that concerns have also been expressed by the wider Park Mains High School community who are not statutory consultees in relation to this primary provision consultation. Those concerns related specifically to a desire not to impede the progress of the current project to extend Park Mains High School. 5.5.3. While officers progress the agreed work programme to extend Park Mains High School - the confirmed catchment school for Dargavel and Bishopton, it is fully accepted that there is a critical need to provide transparent and regular updates to the wider community on updated school rolls and projections, to provide the required reassurance that high school capacity will provide sufficient spaces for all children living in the catchment in the long term. The established Park Mains Parent Council Liaison Group has and will continue to be the main forum for cascade of information and feedback from the communities of each catchment primary school. This will include ongoing engagement to inform the programme to extend the school. 5.5.4. To date, through the Park Mains High School space-planning process, consultants have worked with community members, school staff, pupils and parents and carers to make sure views were captured as part of that process. This covered how the existing building is currently used, satisfaction levels with the current building, views on different types of learning space and what building users would like to see from an extended Park Mains. Over 560 individuals completed surveys and 43 took part in focus groups. The school design team and construction contractors have been confirmed and appointed and work is continuing to meet the agreed August 2027 delivery date. 5.6. Effective community engagement and transparent planning and decision- making 5.6.1. There is still an important journey to repair and rebuild the council’s relationship with the local community. The process of consultation, outlined in the report, provided numerous touchpoints to listen to the community and provide deeper understanding of local concerns and challenges. Although there are groups within the community who remain understandably angry towards the council and sceptical of programme planning and delivery, there is a wider community who are willing to work closely with the council to deliver improvements for the community ongoing. It is vitally important the council works strategically to engage those individuals and groups, use existing forums and networks across the community, and provide genuine opportunities for collaboration. This will include ongoing sharing and scrutiny of roll projection data and agreeing an established mechanism for ongoing engagement on active travel and traffic, high school transport, school design, including ASN (Additional Support Needs) provision and wider community needs.
Page 14
___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial The cost to delivery of a second school within Dargavel village has been incorporated into the Council’s medium term financial planning arrangements as reported to Council as part of regular medium term financial outlook reports. 2. HR & Organisational Development - None. 3. Community/Council Planning: Our Renfrewshire is thriving Our Renfrewshire is fair Reshaping our place, our economy, and our future Building strong, safe, and resilient communities Creating a sustainable Renfrewshire for all to enjoy Working together to improve outcomes - The revised catchment areas and approval of site will give clarity to the community and enable the new building to have a positive start. - The process is designed to ensure everyone can give their views and have them heard. - The catchment review informs the development of the new building - There is a clear consideration given to safe travel - The site evaluations had sustainability and green space as a clear focus - Ensuring children have a high quality and sustained primary education is at the core of the process 4. Legal This proposal adheres to the procedures required to take forward any proposal in terms of the Schools (consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 amended through the enactment of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. 5. Property/Assets Through its school estate management plan the council aims to have an efficient and well maintained property portfolio which provides learning environments which support the delivery of the curriculum. 6. Information Technology
Page 15
Effective IT infrastructure within schools contributes to the development of digital literacy and state of the art technology supports learning experiences and the creation of new and diverse skills. 7. Equality & Human Rights An Equality Impact Assessment has been carried out to support the consultation process, ensuring that equalities considerations were taken into account in the design and delivery of the consultation. In line with the Council’s approach, a summary of this impact assessment will be published on the Council’s website with a full version available on request. The Board report refers to a number of key early considerations raised through the consultation process, including meeting the needs of children and young people with Additional Support Needs, considering the changing demographics of relevant catchment areas and delivering a comprehensive and inclusive engagement plan to ensure ongoing community engagement through the school design and planning processes. Further Equality Impact Assessments will be carried out as appropriate throughout the lifecycle of this proposal to pay due regard to equality and human rights considerations. 8. Health & Safety - None. 9. Procurement – As outlined in the report it is planned to deliver the new school through Hub West Scotland. 10. Risk - None. 11. Privacy Impact - None. 12. Cosla Policy Position – None. 13. Climate Risk A Climate Risk Strategy will be developed to address the design, procurement, construction and ‘in use’ phases of the project. _________________________________________________________ List of Background Papers ___________________________________________________________________ Author: Gerry Lyons, Interim Head of Education, gerry.lyons@renfrewshire.gov.uk 10/05/2024
Page 16
Appendices Contents Page A. Statutory Consultation Final Report B. Information session brochure C. Records of drop in session D. Points raised at info sessions E. Minutes of 2 public meetings F. Transcript of 2 public meetings G. Record of meeting with Bishopton Parent Council H. Record of meeting with Dargavel parent council I. Minute of Bishopton Community Council J. The spreadsheet of all text responses K. Peter McColl’s report - Qualitative Analysis: RESPONSES TO THE DARGAVEL SCHOOL CONSULTATION, Peter McColl Ltd. L. Summary of Key Issues M. Education Scotland Report
Page 17
1 Appendix 1 RENFREWSHIRE COUNCIL CHILDREN’S SERVICES STATUTORY CONSULTATION FINAL REPORT • Proposal: The establishment of a new primary school to be built at Dargavel Village on an 8.5 acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive and • a Catchment Review Affecting Dargavel Primary School and a new primary school to be built at Dargavel Village This document has been issued by Renfrewshire Council in terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, as amended. This Report includes: 1. Introduction and background to the statutory consultation 2. The Statutory Consultation and Community Engagement activities 3. On Line Questionnaire - Quantitative analysis of Likert Scale Questions responses 4. Online Questionnaire – Main issues and concerns identified in Likert Scale Questions responses 5. Summary of main issues and Council response 6. Report from Education Scotland 7. Council Response to the Issues raised by Education Scotland 8. Summary 9. Equality Statement
Page 18
2 1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND TO THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION PROCESS 1.1 On the 18th January 2024, the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board approved a statutory consultation on a proposal to establish a new non- denominational primary school in Dargavel, the site of the proposed new building to be an 8.5 acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive, and to consult on revised catchment areas for the existing Dargavel primary school and the proposed new school. 1.2 The Education and Children’s Services Policy Board also authorised the Director of Children’s Services, or another appropriate officer nominated by her, to take such action as is required to carry that consultation through to completion, in accordance with the legal requirements. 1.3 The Education and Children’s Services Policy Board also noted that provision for denominational pupils within Dargavel Village will remain unchanged within the St.John Bosco Primary School catchment area. 1.4 The statutory consultation was launched on January 29th 2024 and was concluded on March 26th 2024. This was an 8-week consultation period which goes beyond the minimum six-week period which is a requirement of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 as amended. 2. THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 2.1 Renfrewshire Council consulted in line with the requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 as amended. This requires that local authorities adopt a robust and transparent framework for consultations on major changes to the education estate, for example, catchment areas. The process requires authorities to actively involve and consult with all stakeholders and other school users. The local authority is required to include an educational benefit statement – that is, the local authority must produce a statement setting out its assessment of the effects on children and young people and other users of an affected establishment. There is a minimum six week term-time consultation period. 2.2 The report to the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board included as an appendix the proposal paper. This included: • the legal procedure for a public consultation over a new school • the reasoning behind our proposal, and the options we looked at when developing it • our educational benefits statement • the issues we considered when looking at possible sites for the new school • a list of streets affected by the proposed changes to the catchment.
Page 19
3 2.3 In advance of the consultation launch Renfrewshire Council put in place a comprehensive communication and engagement plan. This had three key aims, to: • deliver a comprehensive public consultation which gave all interested parties the chance to express their views • help create a well-informed discussion around key issues affecting the future of primary school provision in the area • demonstrate the council’s willingness to hear directly from the local community on their views around future school provision 2.4 Some community engagement work had already taken place prior to this point, which was used to help inform the consultation content. 2.5 Space planning for a proposed new primary school took place over several months in late 2023. This aimed to capture the views of the local community and other key stakeholders on what they wanted from a new school building, to help inform the brief for the design. This included an online community survey, which received 524 responses, and focus groups with local community and parent groups. 2.6 The space-planning process was able to build on community feedback, received over the course of the previous year through a number of public meetings and forums, which indicated a very strong desire for a new primary school situated within the centre of the village, which would also provide community facilities after the school day. 2.7 Communication actions undertaken as part of this included: • Pre-consultation communication o In advance of the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board in January, Renfrewshire Council wrote to local parents, members of our opt-in Dargavel community email list, and key stakeholders to make them aware the consultation was on the agenda. o The Council did this again after the meeting to let them know councillors had given approval to proceed and that there would be communication once the consultation launched on Monday 29 January. • Dedicated consultation webpage o A dedicated webpage was created in advance of the launch. This included: o Information on what was being consulted on and why o A link to the formal proposal paper o Details of the planned information evenings, public meetings, and informal drop-in sessions, along with information on what the public could expect from each, and how to book these. o Details of how members of the public could submit their views directly
Page 20
4 o An outline of the decision-making process which would follow the consultation. o A link was later added to the supplementary information created for the public information sessions, covering the outputs from existing engagement with the school community from the space-planning exercise carried out in late 2023, further information on the process to select the proposed site, and transport and travel links. • Initial message to all statutory consultees o When the consultation was launched on Monday 29 January, the council wrote to all statutory consultees with a link to the above webpage and an invitation to attend the public events. These included: o parents and carers of pupils at affected schools (Dargavel, Bishopton, St John Bosco) o staff and trade unions at the affected schools o parent councils of those schools o elected members o the local community council and community planning partnership o community groups who use the existing Dargavel Primary School • The council also wrote to those who we expect may attend the new school. This included: o a text message to parents at Dargavel ELCC o an email to the opt-in Dargavel community newsletter list. This was created for anyone with an interested in school facilities in the area who we wouldn’t otherwise reach (as of 29 January 2024, this had 519 subscribers) o an email to the 141 families who had registered a child to start P1 at Dargavel Primary in summer 2024 o emails to the heads of other private or partner nurseries in the area with a request to share with their parents and carers • Paper copies of the proposal paper and supporting information were made available at local schools, at Bishopton Library, and at council Headquarters at Renfrewshire House in Paisley. • Parents at Dargavel and Bishopton Primaries were also contacted directly by the schools to make them aware of the times where senior officers were hosting informal drop-in sessions at those schools. • Further messages to the community: o The Council wrote again to the key groups listed above on several further occasions during the consultation to help us maximise engagement. This included:
Page 21
5 o 8 February – reminder message asking residents to sign up for the public events (which ran between 14 February and 5 March) o 23 February – message to let community know the online survey had been launched. o 13 March – a further reminder to fill out the survey, with our response to some of the key issues raised at the public meetings, and a reminder of the next steps. o 21 March – a message to remind community members the consultation had less than a week to go, with a final reminder to fill out the survey before it closed • The Council also wrote to the parents living in Dargavel or Bishopton who had registered a child for a funded nursery place starting from summer 2023 to invite them to take part in the survey. • To help us reach any groups not covered by the above or who are not online, we organised a direct distribution of fliers to all postcodes for Dargavel and Bishopton PS catchment areas in late February. This directed them to the webpage for more information, to the online survey to submit their views, and to where in the local area paper copies of the materials could be found. Posters covering the same information were also distributed to key venues throughout the community. Public Events 2.8 The Council hosted a series of public events, designed to give members of the local community the chance to meet the senior officers involved and find out more about the proposal. This included: • a series of informal drop-in sessions for existing parents and carers at Dargavel and Bishopton Primaries (at school drop-off and pick-up times), to allow them to talk to senior officers. 40 parents attended these sessions. • Four information sessions were held at Dargavel Primary. These were designed to allow community members to meet senior officers in an informal setting and discuss topics like site selection, transport and travel, and school construction, capacity and operations. Total attendance across the four sessions was 62. • Display boards were created for these information sessions which covered outputs from engagement which had already taken place, including: o what people had said pre-engagement through the space planning public survey for the new school. o based on that, plans and images showing examples of how it might look o a map of all sites considered for the new school, including those suggested by the community, and analysis of how each was assessed and scored
Page 22
6 o active travel and school access considerations • Two public meetings took place where officers were able to feedback on issues raised at the information sessions and invite questions from the public. Total attendance across the two events was 57. Meetings with statutory consultees 2.9 Meetings were also held with the following statutory consultee groups: o Dargavel Primary Parent Council o Bishopton Primary Parent Council o Primary 5 -7 children in Bishopton Primary o Primary 4-7 children in Dargavel Primary o Staff of Bishopton Primary o Staff of Dargavel Primary o Individual meetings with ward elected members o Bishopton Community Council o Dargavel Residents Association 2.10 The statutory consultation period concluded on 26 March 2024. 2.11 As part of the consultation process, officers ensured that the views and opinions of respondents were given due consideration. In order to ensure a rigorous and through examination of the responses received, senior members of Children’s Services read every response to validate key aspects of responses and ensure all key issues were identified. 2.12 To provide rigour to the consideration of views and opinions of respondents, there was a 2 stage qualitative analysis of all textual responses to identify sentiment, strength of feeling and where comments, concerns and suggestions carried real weight of argument. This provides a robust understanding of community feeling. Stage 2 was carried out by council officers analysing the comments across all questions and all views to establish the most thorough possible understanding of the views expressed in the consultation, Appendix B and C. 2.13 Officers performed quantitive analysis to understand percentage of respondents expressing a view and ensuring these were recorded and categorised. This ensured alignment with the themes identified with the consulates analysis and also the feedback received through the engagement process. 2.14 In a major consultation, there is the provision to update the formal proposal document if information is found to be inaccurate or missing. Two minor inaccuracies were identified and updated during the consultation period: I. In the site matrix, the scoring of two sites were not included. A correction notice was issued on the website and officers wrote to all statutory consultees to inform them of the change and the issue of the correction notice.
Page 23
7 II. In the catchment areas, there were two streets included in the catchment area for the new Dargavel Primary school which should have been included in the catchment area for Bishopton primary and two streets without residences. The catchment areas were adjusted accordingly. 3. RESPONSES RECEIVED – ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES 3.1 There were a total of 817 responses to the questionnaire. The substantive questions were as follows (one question asked for postcode). Question 1: Please confirm you have read the statutory consultation document (full document) 75 respondents said they had not read the document. The other 743 said they had. Question 2: Which of the following best describes your interest in this consultation? 584 Resident Parent/Carer 167 Resident of Renfrewshire 45 42 Pupil of affected school Other
Page 24
8 Question 3: Please indicate whether you are happy for your comments to be made public? 380 asked for their comments not to be shared and two did not answer this question. As a result their comments are omitted from publication but were included in the analysis. 436 expressly consented to their comments being made public. Quantitative Responses This section of the analysis focuses on the questions where the answers were on the Likert Scale, going from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree – Questions 1-4; Question 6 and Question 7. Question 4: To what extent do you agree a new primary school should be built in Dargavel Village? Their responses are presented in the chart below:
Page 25
9 • Strongly Agree: A significant majority – 618 respondents, strongly agree with the proposition of building a new primary school. • Agree: 96 respondents agree with the proposal. • Neither Agree nor Disagree: 25 respondents have a neutral stance on the issue. • Disagree: 28 respondents disagree with the proposal • Strongly Disagree: 49 respondents are strongly against the proposal, indicating a notable segment of respondents with strong reservations or opposition. Question 6: To what extent do you agree the school should be built on the proposed 8.5-acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive? There were 172 responses strongly agreeing with the site proposed for the primary school, 151 agreeing, 161 who indicated they neither agreed nor disagreed and 3 who left this box blank, and 127 who disagreed with the site, a further 204 strongly disagreed with the site. These figures are represented in the following chart 49, 6% 28, 3% 25, 3% 96, 12% 618, 76% To what extent do you agree a new primary school should be built in Dargavel village 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree (blank)
Page 26
10 Question 7: To what extent do you agree with the proposed catchment area for the existing Dargavel Primary School and the new school? The overwhelming response to this question was ‘neither agree nor disagree’ reflecting its subordinate status to other questions about whether to build a new school and where that school should be sited. There were 99 respondents who strongly agreed with the proposed catchment, 258 who ‘agreed’, 354 who neither agreed nor disagreed. There were 49 respondents who disagreed and 51 who strongly disagreed. 204, 25% 127, 16% 161, 20% 151, 18% 171, 21% To what extent do you agree the school should be built on the proposed 8.5 acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree (blank) 258, 32% 49, 6%354, 44% 99, 12% 51, 6% To what extent do you agree with the proposed catchment areas for the existing Dargavel Primary School and the proposed new school? Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly agree Strongly disagree (blank)
Page 27
11 4. ONLINE QUESTIONNAIRE – FOLLOW UP COMMENTS 4.1 This section provides a collation of the most significant issues in the comments explaining the responses to the Likert scale questions. 4.2 All comments have been independently analysed in the process described earlier in this report. The reports of these analysis is attached as appendix K and appendix L. 4.3 For the full details of the comments and points raised, please see these reports. 4.4 The main issues and concerns identified by the consultants analysis: Proposal 1 – Building of a new school 1. Population Growth 2. Planning Issues 3. Community Impact and Quality of Life 4. Urgency to delivery primary capacity. 5. Respondents didnt feel qualified to express a view. Proposal 2 – Site of new school 1. Traffic and Travel a. Traffic congestion b. Safety concerns – children and pedestrians c. Traffic management plan d. Concerns about arrangements for active travel 2. Location preference and justification 3. Critiques of consultation process 4. Long term educational planning – joint campus and secondary provision 5. Concerns about division within the area caused by two schools in the one area. Proposal 3 – Catchment areas 1. Community Division 2. Community Needs – one catchment area for the whole village
Page 28
12 Additional Comments 1. Council Decision making and planning 2. Data and Consultation process 3. Although outwith the scope of the consultation, there was significant comment made expressing the view that a new secondary school or a 3- 18 campus should be built. 5. EMAIL SUBMISSIONS 5.1 Summary of Feedback on Proposed Design for Dargavel Primary School There were submissions by email from 13 individuals. These are separate to the online questionnaire. One individual submitted 3 responses. In total, therefore there were 15 emailed responses. One individual completed the survey on paper. These have been analysed separately because it cannot be ascertained whether the respondents also responded to the survey. Their preferences have not been added to the tallies, with the exception of the respondent who was the sole paper response received to the questionnaire. Initial Concerns and Transparency Issues • Email respondent 1: Expresses appreciation for the council's efforts but raises concerns about transparency and detailed planning, highlighting potential biases in the proposal. • Email respondent 2: Urges long-term planning, especially considering population growth, and suggests a broader approach encompassing community needs and future infrastructure. • Email respondent 3: Expresses disappointment in short-sighted planning decisions, advocating for a more comprehensive approach. Site Selection and Community Impact • Email respondent 2: Supports the proposed site within Dargavel for minimizing impact on greenfield areas and emphasizes the need for infrastructure within the designated development area. • Email respondent 2: Echoes the sentiment for the school to be situated within Dargavel, citing responsibilities of Renfrewshire Council and developers to support the growing community. • Email respondent 4: Opposes the proposed site due to concerns about wildlife, noise, and traffic impact, suggesting a reconsideration of alternative locations. High School Provision and Community Engagement • Email respondent 5: Criticizes past planning decisions and expresses concerns about the consultation process, calling for accountability and improved engagement.
Page 29
13 • Email respondent 6: Raises concerns about high school capacity and urges thorough consideration of secondary school provision alongside primary school planning. • Email respondent 7: Expresses interest in contributing to the consultation remotely due to travel commitments, but makes no substantive contribution. Infrastructure and Special Needs Support • Email responded 8: Highlights the need for adequate support for children with additional support needs and suggests addressing existing issues before proceeding with new infrastructure. • Email respondent 9: Recommends considerations for classroom design, outdoor spaces, accessibility, and facilities for children with additional needs. • Email respondent 10: Advocates for equal consideration of existing residents' amenity and raises concerns about light and noise pollution from the proposed school site. • Email respondent 11: Advocates for a smaller new school and proposes extending Bishopton Primary instead to secure its long-term future. • Email respondent 12: Expresses frustration with the consultation process and criticizes the council's handling of high school provision, advocating for better solutions for children's education. Sports Facilities and Stakeholder Engagement • Email respondent 13: Seeks confirmation on plans for a floodlit football pitch adjacent to the new primary school, emphasizing the importance of sports facilities. • Email respondent 5: Calls for clarity on the proposed extension of Park Mains High School and highlights concerns raised by stakeholders regarding high school provision. Specific Site Concerns and Personal Impact • Email respondent 4: Voices concerns about the proximity of the proposed school site to residential areas and potential negative impacts on wildlife, noise, and traffic. • Email respondent 3: Expresses disappointment in short-sighted planning decisions and urges consideration of long-term impacts on children's education and community well-being 6. SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES AND COUNCIL RESPONSE Traffic The biggest and most recurring concern was Traffic and associated issues. Traffic issue 1 - Congestion
Page 30
14 Traffic Issue 2 - Safety Traffic Issue 3 - Infrastructure to support Active Travel 6.1 Traffic and Traffic Congestion 6.1.1 Road traffic volumes, congestion concerns and the availability of safe active travel routes to the existing and the proposed new school site were the most recurring and consistent themes of concern expressed during the consultation events with the local community. 6.1.2 It was anticipated that concerns of this nature were likely to emerge through the consultation process based on the extent they had featured in earlier pre-engagement activity carried out by officers with the community. In this context a planned independent transport and travel study was commissioned (carried out by Stantec) in January 2024 to assess both the existing situation within the development and to model the impact of the proposed new school site on the capacity of the transport infrastructure across the Dargavel village as it is completed. 6.1.3 The traffic modelling undertaken as part of the study provided reassurance that that the existing road infrastructure planned to be delivered by BAE systems will accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by trips to and from both primary schools without any capacity issues arising on either the overall road network, or with traffic volumes passing through key junctions in the development. This provides a level of assurance that the flow of traffic within the development will not experience congestion issues due to capacity demand linked to peak school time travel. 6.1.4 The Stantec study also explored considerations in respect to traffic related issues in and about the immediately vicinity of both schools, which can present different challenges beyond overall road and junction capacity. The study assessed the travel modes currently used to access Dargavel Primary School, noting that existing active travel to the school already performs comparably with the Renfrewshire primary school average as summarised below: • The overall proportion of pupils walking or using park and stride to get to school is lower than the Renfrewshire average, but the proportion cycling and scooting / skating is higher meaning that the overall proportion of pupils using active travel is 69%, the same as the Renfrewshire average. • The proportion of pupils being driven to school is slightly less than the Renfrewshire average at 21%, compared to 24%.
Page 31
15 Mode Share Comparison versus Renfrewshire Average 6.1.5 In relation to those driving to the school, Stantec traffic surveys and monitoring identified a high proportion navigating into the school car park and making use of the drop-off area and not staying for long – as the school design intended. However, they also monitored some cars parking, pavement mounted on the north side of Arrochar Drive between the school “keep clear markings” and the signalised junction with Barrangary Road. This results in Arrochar Drive being reduced to effectively one vehicle lane in this area, with a requirement for “give and go”, and with the parking impinging on pedestrian use of footpaths and clear lines of visibility. Similarly, drivers were also seen park on the footways within the residential streets accessed off Arrochar Drive, blocking walking routes and again impinging on pedestrians. 6.1.6 The Stantec study notes however that the existing primary school is currently supporting housing across the whole development area, including a significant proportion of housing to the north of the development that is beyond a 15-minute walking distance from the school. It also noted housing to the north of the development is impacted by incomplete travel infrastructure that will eventually link the north of the village to the south of the development where the school is located. Additionally, Arrochar Drive is currently operating as a no through road, as the internal loop (Western Link Road) has not been fully constructed. It is expected that the WLR will be constructed by BAE by December 2025. The Stantec study notes that the absence the completed loop road (WLR) has likely encouraged more driven trips and traffic to and from the existing school from housing sites on the north side of the village and that some of the existing traffic issues associated with a high number of car-based trips to and from Dargavel Primary School are exacerbated by these factors. 6.1.7 This undoubtedly contributes to existing issues with vehicle parking around the current school location and this is reflected in the concerns expressed by
Page 32
16 the community through the consultation response in relation to traffic and safe active travel routes to school. 6.1.8 It is critical moving forward that effective engagement and communication is maintained with the community to evidence that a second school at site E1 and the existing Dargavel Primary school will provide school facilities that are highly connected to their associated catchments and that those connections represent a safe environment for travelling to and from the school sites, irrespective of the mode of travel chosen. 6.1.9 It is critical to consider how in the short-term traffic issues at the current school can be resolved and to ensure that concerns relating to traffic congestion and safe active travel linked to the new school’s proposed location can be adequately and appropriately addressed in the design and delivery planning of the new school. 6.1.10 First and foremost, it is important to recognise that delivery of the second school and implementation of the revised catchments changes, along with delivery of the full village infrastructure (both road and active travel) by BAE Systems will deliver high active travel connectivity and travel times to both schools. 6.1.11 Dargavel Primary School’s catchment will significantly reduce in geographical size and the positioning of site E1 was selected specifically to maximise the opportunity to deliver the shortest active travel distances within its catchment. Detailed travel modelling has been completed by Stantec that confirms the following active travel times for both schools. 6.1.12 This modelling confirms that both schools will have short commute times, providing a high level of opportunity for active travel to school and reduced need for travel by car. As outlined above, the existing school catchment by contrast has a significant proportion of houses materially outwith a 15- minute walking distance which Stantec have noted this will likely have encouraged a greater level of travel by car. 6.1.13 In addition, officers have engaged with Stantec during the course of their study to review a number of considerations that would further enhance safe active travel to both schools, improve arrangements for drop-off and pick-up by car at Dargavel Primary School and identify design factors to be carefully considered in the delivery of a new school on the proposed site. It will be
Page 33
17 critical such issues are progressed in a manner which aligns with the overall communication and engagement plan set out in the recommendations. 6.1.14 Engagement with BAE Systems is underway to jointly progress planning access and travel routes for the new school site as part of the school and site design. This will carefully consider planned and enhanced active travel infrastructure that BAE Systems will deliver and the design of a school site with multiple access and egress points to minimise distances to housing developments in the surrounding catchment area. 6.1.15 In addition, it will be critical for there to be coordinated and pro-active joint travel planning between both primary schools and the community to support and champion active travel arrangements. 6.1.16 It is accepted that travel by car is unavoidable for some parents and carers at drop-off and pick-up times and adequate design and capacity for parking and drop-off/pick-up arrangements is a key requirement that will be planned into the new school site design, informed by best practice design principles, community engagement and from learning from other similar school sites across the country. This will include exploring traffic control measures in and around the immediate vicinity of the school. Demonstrating well developed, assessed and appropriate arrangements for traffic and travel to and from the school site will be a key requirement that will support the statutory planning application. 6.1.17 In addition, and in recognition of the observed issues being experienced at the current school site, officers are progressing an option appraisal for improved drop-off and pick-up arrangements utilising the flexibility provided through available land secured from BAE systems adjacent to Dargavel Primary School whilst wider travel infrastructure is completed by BAE Systems and revised catchments are implemented as the new school is delivered. A report in this regard will be brought back to the Education and Childrens Services Policy Board for consideration. The other most common issues were: 6.2 Ensure community amenity and community access within the new school 6.2.1 Pre-engagement space planning captured the overwhelming support from the community to deliver a school with the highest quality learning environment and which supports flexible community use outwith school hours (98% of those involved in pre-engagement supported the community having access to the school for a variety of activities – outdoor sport, fitness and exercise classes, social activities, children and toddler groups, adult learning classes, health and wellbeing support. 6.2.2 Officers can confirm this will be integral to the design, and a full size, floodlight synthetic sport pitch with changing facilities is incorporated into the planned school provision and site 9 E1 provides sufficient flexible land to support community facilities. Further engagement with the community, including local groups and sports clubs will take place during the design process to maintain focus on community demand. In addition, following feedback from the
Page 34
18 Dargavel community through the consultation process, officers are working with the community to determine the best route to support and meet community sports pitch needs whilst the new school-based facility is delivered, and this will include consideration of how other existing pitch provision can be best utilised to meet current and future need. 6.3 High school provision/joint campus development – Outwith scope of consultation 6.3.1 High school provision is not within the scope of the consultation. However it is recognised that officers must continue to engage the community and work in an open and responsive way to plan for future secondary school provision . A new high school or joint primary/secondary campus were referenced by over a third of respondents as important considerations for the Council, and this included those who support the proposal for a new primary school on the proposed site. Importantly, future high school provision for west Renfrewshire is integral to the Council’s strategic learning estate review which will consider long term demand profiles across Renfrewshire, as well as renewal and replacement priorities and options for the primary and high school estate across Renfrewshire. An engagement programme will support this long-term review and will ensure the views of all communities are represented, including Dargavel and Bishopton communities. This includes existing and ongoing engagement in relation to the plans to extend Park Mains High School and the regular updating of school rolls and long term school roll projections for Park Mains High School and implications of these. 6.3.2 It should be noted that concerns have also been expressed by the wider Park Mains High School community who are not statutory consultees in relation to this primary provision consultation. Those concerns related specifically to a desire not to impede the progress of the current project to extend Park Mains High School. 6.3.3 While officers progress the agreed work programme to extend Park Mains High School - the confirmed catchment school for Dargavel and Bishopton, it is fully accepted that there is a critical need to provide transparent and regular updates to the wider community on updated school rolls and projections, to provide the required reassurance that high school capacity will provide sufficient spaces for all children living in the catchment in the long term. The established Park Mains Parent Council Liaison Group has and will continue to be the main forum for cascade of information and feedback from the communities of each catchment primary school. This will include ongoing engagement to inform the programme to extend the school. 6.3.4 To date, through the Park Mains High School space-planning process, consultants have worked with community members, school staff, pupils and parents and carers to make sure views were captured as part of that process. This covered how the existing building is currently used, satisfaction levels with the current building, views on different types of learning space and what building users would like to see from an extended Park Mains. Over 560 individuals completed surveys and 43 took part in focus groups. The school
Page 35
19 design team and construction contractors have been confirmed and appointed and work is continuing to meet the agreed August 2027 delivery date. 6.4 Effective community engagement and transparent planning and decision-making 6.4.1 There is still an important journey to repair and rebuild the council’s relationship with the local community. The process of consultation, outlined in the report, provided numerous touchpoints to listen to the community and provide deeper understanding of local concerns and challenges. Although there are groups within the community who remain understandably angry towards the council and sceptical of programme planning and delivery, there is a wider community who are willing to work closely with the council to deliver improvements for the community ongoing. It is vitally important the council works strategically to engage those individuals and groups, use existing forums and networks across the community, and provide genuine opportunities for collaboration. This will include ongoing sharing and scrutiny of roll projection data and agreeing an established mechanism for ongoing engagement on active travel and traffic, high school transport, school design, including ASN (Additional Support Needs) provision and wider community needs. 6.5 Issue - Numbers/Roll projections 6.5.1 Linked to the lack of trust in the Council’s planning processes, especially due to the previous errors in numbers, there were concerns expressed about the accuracy of the current projections on which the plans for the proposed new building are based. Response – There have been significant lessons learned from that process. The current projections have been developed independently by Edge Analytics which is a national leader in this field and provide a number range on which the council has based a range of plans. As distinct from the previous errors, the proposed new building, when added to the capacity of the current primary school, provides 1234 spaces and could be stretched to 1300 spaces. That provides sufficient capacity for the most likely projection scenario. However, plans are being developed for how additional capacity could be provided should numbers reach a peak which is higher than expected.. This position is further strengthened by the annual monitoring of live data matched against projections which will allow officers to ensure that provision is sufficient for demand and to respond where any concerns arise. 6.6 Issue - Location of site; proximity to current school 6.6.1 There were concerns expressed about the proposed site being too close to the current school and associated difficulties for the community. Response:
Page 36
20 This would be something which would be managed by the headteachers of the school. The council want there to be community cohesion in Dargavel/Bishopton, so the headteachers will be encouraged to work together; to collaborate on projects and to exploit every opportunity for the children to work together. There was also concern about increased noise and disruption caused by the schools being close together. However, wherever the new school is built, increased noise because of the number of children attending will be very challenging to avoid. Conversely some respondents, although fewer cited a preference for the schools to be on the same site. 6.7 Issue - The nature of the Consultation Process 6.7.1 There was a view that about the fact there was only one option presented for consultation and a suggestion this meant the decision had already been made. Response: The consultation process was designed in line with both the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010, as amended and guidance provided by Education Scotland linked to the act. The guidance is there has to be a proposal on which to consult. For this reason, there was the presentation of one option to engage with the community about that proposal and issues associated with it. However, throughout the process it was emphasised that if the outcome of the process was a clear message of no support for the proposal, then officers would present that view to the council for a decision on whether the proposal should progress. Additionally, there was also a clear message that if there was a prevailing view about an alternative proposal related to building a new school, then this would be fully considered and presented to the Council for their consideration. While there were a range of views about the site, as can be seen in section 4 of this report, there was no clear view about one alternative site. The alternative sites which were identified were Sites 22 and 23 in the site matrix– predominantly, because they are large enough for a joint campus. These were identified by 119 respondents, which is 14.6% of the total number of respondents. However, both of these sites are situated within the green belt and therefore would require a much more detailed and complex planning process, with a final decision being made by the Scottish Government, rather than the Council. There are also travel issues associated with these sites as it would encourage increased car use in contradiction of the rationale for the new site to maximise opportunities for children to walk to school. These factors were considered within the scoring matrix. There was a consistent message throughout the consultation that respondents could suggest an alternative site/s. The survey was designed to specifically ask respondents this question.
Page 37
21 6.8 Issue - Residential Impact and Expectations 6.8.1 People had bought houses in Dargavel village with certain expectations, including what school their children would go to and these expectations have not been met. Response: One of the regretful aspects of the current situation is that children have not been able to go to the school their parents planned for them, and some have had that decision made by a ballot. The 2027 deadline for the new school is to minimise that uncertainty and to have enough provision to meet the expectations of parents, and to meet their entitlement for their child to go to their catchment school. 6.9 Issue - Consideration of other sites 6.9.1 The site matrix did not give enough details of reasons why other sites had been discounted. Response: There were key criteria for sites to meet the requirement of having a school in the heart of Dargavel village and for the new school to be delivered by August 2027. These were applied to all sites identified by the Council and by the community. If these criteria were not met, then the site was discounted. This is a standard approach to site evaluation for statutory consultations. 6.10 Issue – Design of the new school 6.10.1 There have been recognised issues with the open plan nature of the current school and a view that the new school should learn lessons from these. Response: There have been lessons learned from the experience of the existing Dargavel Primary school. The headteacher, staff and children from Dargavel primary school met with the space planners and shared their views and their ideas for the new school. These have all been built into the space planning process and will continue to inform the design of the new primary school to ensure the best learning environment for all children. 6.11 Issue -Design process 6.11.1 Will the project be delivered on time and how long will the modular classrooms be in the current school once the new school is ready? A number of responses questioned the project plan for the new school and expressed concerns the new school would not be ready for the planned August 2027.
Page 38
22 Response There is currently an indicative timeline for the building of the new school. This is based on timelines and deadlines for key aspects of the project, for example, planning permission. The council is committed to delivering the new school for opening in August 2027 and these timelines will be pushed forward, wherever possible. The process will be managed through Hub West which will speed up the tendering process for contractors and consultants. However, in response to the concerns raised in the consultation, there is now planning for appropriate temporary measures, if there are indications the deadline might not be met. The detail of these is still to be agreed, but will be shared as part of the ongoing community engagement as the project progresses. We emphasise that we are fully committed to delivering the project on time for the school opening in August 2027. When the new school opens, the modular classrooms will be removed from the current school. This will take approximately 5 weeks. 6.12 Issue - Children with additional support needs 6.12.1 Would the new building be planned to meet the needs of all children, including those with additional support needs? Response: Renfrewshire Council has a full commitment to inclusion and meeting the needs of all children in our schools. This will be central to the design of the new school and we will engage with a focus group of parents of children with additional support needs to inform the design process. This will ensure design decisions are informed by the full range of children’s needs. 6.13 Issue - Sufficient denominational spaces 6.13.1 All projections indicate that denominational education can be met by St. John Bosco primary school. 6.14 Issue - Lack of facilities for teenagers in an area with a changing demographic. Response: This issue came up in the discussions at the wide range of engagement events, more so than in the online questionnaires. However, it is a very important one for the local community where, over time, there will be an increasing number of teenage young people and insufficient facilities and activities for them. As part of continuing engagement, there will be planned meetings with all relevant partners to explore the best strategy to make the local community a positive one for young people with a full range of activities in which they can participate.
Page 39
23 7. REPORT FROM EDUCATION SCOTLAND 7.1 The Council has fully considered the report from Education Scotland. 7.2 Overall Education Scotland consider the council has set out reasonable educational benefits for this proposal. 7.3 Education Scotland recognise that in the very substantial response to the online questionnaire, there was no clear consensus on the proposed site on Craigton Drive with less than half of respondents agreeing with the proposed site and only slightly more, also less than half, disagreeing. There was a large number of respondents who neither agreed or disagreed. Education Scotland does confirm there is no consensus on an alternative site. 7.4 The issues noted in the report are as follows: The authority needs to: • ensure there are improved, adequate safe active routes to school. They also need to develop robust and viable plans to efficiently manage the significant increase in traffic that is expected. • ensure that there are clear contingency plans in place, should there be slippage in the projected timescales for the construction and opening of the new school for August 2027. • continue to consult with stakeholders about the design of the new school, the facilities to be included and in considerations about the community use of the site. 7.5 The report also highlighted that, in taking forward the proposals, the Council should continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate their valid concerns and to involve them, as appropriate, in the design of the new school. Children’s services, along with other council services is very committed to ongoing community engagement on education provision in Dargavel village and will undertake this involvement as part of their already established community engagement processes involving parents/carers, staff, children and other stakeholders, for example community groups. 7.6 Although outwith the scope of the consultation, it would be helpful for the council to continue to work with parents to address their concerns about secondary provision. This is already in place through the Park Mains transition group and presentations to Parent Councils about plans for the extension and education provision. 8. COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY EDUCATION SCOTLAND 8.1 Issue: Improved, adequate safe travel active routes to school, robust and viable plans to efficiently manage the increase in traffic Response:
Page 40
24 The council commissioned Stantec to carry out a review of Active Travel provision at Dargavel village. The report confirmed there is sufficient road network capacity and junction capacity to support a second primary school on the proposed site. The report confirmed there are no implications regarding proximity of school location. The report does recommend a number of considerations to maximise active travel to Dargavel Primary School and to the proposed school site and to drop-off and pick-up by car at Dargavel primary school. Councill officers are progressing options and proposals for improved drop off and pick up arrangements at Dargavel primary school. Engagement with BAE systems is underway to ensure future developments supports the travel and traffic improvements required by the council. Further analysis by Stantec indicates that with the council’s planned traffic arrangements, a school on Site 9 E1, has the potential to be one of the most walkable primary schools in Renfrewshire, with 71% of catchment pupils able to walk to school within a 10 minute timeframe with 100% able to walk within 15 minutes. It is recognised and fully accepted that travel by car is unavoidable for some parents and carers at both drop off and pick up times. And adequate design for parking and drop off/pick up arrangements will be planned into the school design. Joint planning between both primary schools, community support of active travel and temporary traffic management measures during school drop-off and pick up times will also be required to ensure effective arrangements for those pupils travelling to school by active travel or transport. 8.2 Issue: Clear contingency plans in place, should there be slippage in projected timescales Response: The council and West Hub are confident that the school will be delivered on time. However, recognising the concerns about slippage in timescale, discussion has started on what the contingency plans will be in the event there is slippage in the projected timescales. Council officers will provide a report to a future Education and Childrens Services Policy Board on proposed contingency plans, should there be any delay to construction that would impact the anticipated August 2027 opening date. 8.3 Issue: To continue to consult with stakeholders about the design of the new school including community use. Response: The Council has had a detailed engagement with the community since the start of the process of designing the new school. It is committed to continuing to do so. It will design, in partnership with the community, processes for engagement in the design of the new school, including plans for community spaces and community use.
Page 41
25 9. SUMMARY 9.1 The Council team was committed to the largest possible engagement with the proposals. Working with the community, this commitment has been delivered with over 800 responses to the online questionnaire and the participation at the various community events. This has led to a robust range of views on the proposal which gives the Council confidence that the consultation has reflected the views of the wider community. 9.2 Having considered all questionnaire responses; written and verbal responses in conjunction with the Education Scotland report, it is proposed to deliver a new primary school on the proposed site “site 9 – E1” as denoted in the Statutory Consultation documentation opening in August 2027. The council will continue to engage with the local community through the school design and planning process. 9.3 We have paid close attention to concerns relating to active travel and traffic management. Recommended actions will be progressed by officers to ensure community concerns are mitigated and statutory obligations are met. These mitigations will be a requirement of the statutory planning process. 9.4 Although outwith the scope of the consultation, we recognise the concerns expressed about secondary provision and are committed to engaging with the community in the manner described in section 5 of this report. 10. EQUALITIES STATEMENT 10.1 An Equalities and Human Rights Impact Assessment was undertaken as part of the consultation exercise to pay due regard to equalities considerations as part of the Council’s Public Sector Equality Duty.
Page 42
Consultation on new primary school in Dargavel This is a proposal paper This is a consultation on 2 proposals: 1 A proposal to establish a new primary school in Dargavel Village on an 8.5-acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive. 2 A catchment review affecting Dargavel Primary School and the proposed new primary school to be built at Dargavel Village. www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Appendix A
Page 43
Table of Contents 1. Summary 2. Procedure for Statutory Public Consultation 3. Rationale for Proposal 4. School Configuration Options 5. Site Option Appraisal 6. Catchment Proposals 7. Educational Benefits Statement 8. Wider Site Considerations 9. Catchment Considerations 10. Statutory Consultation Process Proposal Appendices 1. Edge Analytics Housing and Roll Projections 2. Map of proposed Catchment Area for 2 Dargavel Primary Schools 3. List of streets included in the new catchment areas 4. Dargavel Education Provision—New Build—Site Options Matrix 5. Dargavel Education Provision—New Build—Site E1 location map
Page 44
1. Summary 1.1 This paper asks for your views on the proposals set out above, in accordance with requirements of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.
Page 45
2 Procedure for Statutory Public Consultation 2.1 The procedures for the statutory public consultation relating to this proposal are: This paper will be issued simultaneously to: • the Parent Council or combined Parent Council of Dargavel Primary School; Bishopton Primary School and St. John Bosco Primary School; • the parents of the pupils at the schools identified above; • the parents of any children who would be likely to become pupils at the affected schools or expected by Renfrewshire Council to attend any affected school within 2 years of the date of publication of this proposal paper; • the pupils at any affected school—for the purposes of this consultation, Dargavel Primary School, Bishopton Primary School (in so far as Renfrewshire Council considers them to be of a suitable age and maturity); • the staff (teaching and other) at these schools; • any trade union which appears to Renfrewshire Council to be representative of the staff (teaching and other) at any affected school; • elected members of wards affected by the consultation proposal; • the community Council (if any); • the community planning partnership for the area of the local authority in which any affected school is situated and any other community planning partnership that the education authority considers relevant; and • any other community groups using any of the affected schools. 2.2 Also: • An advertisement will be prepared notifying the public and inviting written comment from individuals or organisations outlining the proposal and the recommendations and stating that full details can be obtained from establishments affected. This will be published in The Paisley Daily Express and the Renfrewshire Gazette. • The paper will be available for inspection at all reasonable times and without charge at Renfrewshire House and on the Council website at https://www.renfrewshire.gov. uk/dargavel-school-consultation and at all affected schools and all public libraries. • The consultation is now underway and will run until 26th March 2024. • A public meeting will be held at Dargavel Primary School at 7pm on 19th February 2024 to allow the proposal to be discussed and oral representations to be considered. Other public events will be held and details will be communicated directly to the groups listed. • Written representation should be made to Gerry Lyons, Interim Head of Education, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1LE or to Dargavel2consultation@renfrewshire.gov.uk, no later than noon on 26th March 2024. 2.3 Copies of the proposal paper and all written representations and comments received will be forwarded to Education Scotland who will consider the papers and prepare a report which will be sent to the education authority. 2.4 A consultation response report including a summary of all written submissions from all bodies and the report from Education Scotland will then be published by Children’s Services in advance of any Council decision. The report will include a statement of the authority’s responses to any issues raised by representations received or by the report from Education Scotland. 2.5 The consultation response report will be available for inspection at all reasonable times and without charge at Renfrewshire House and on the Council website and at all affected schools and all public libraries. 2.6 The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 does not require referral to Scottish Ministers in cases other than closure of schools. 2.7 The final recommendation considering the results of the consultative process will be presented to a meeting of the Education and Children’s Services policy board on 23rd May 2024. Implementation of any decision may not be carried out until at least three weeks have passed.
Page 46
3 Rationale for Proposal to establish a new primary school and catchment review 3.1 In August 2019, following a consultation process in the first half of 2019, the Education and Children’s Service Policy Board agreed the defined catchment for a new non-denominational primary school within Dargavel Village. In January 2022, the newly constructed Dargavel Primary School in Arrochar Drive, within the village development, opened. 3.2 In November 2022, a report was presented to a Special Education and Children’s Services Board setting out that the Council had identified that the primary school capacity provided at Dargavel Primary School would be insufficient to meet the revised projected demand expected to emerge from the catchment area, as the Dargavel Village development progresses to completion. 3.3 Following detailed and updated projection modelling undertaken by the Council and specialist consultancy Edge Analytics in the first half of 2023, the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board agreed the need to plan to deliver a second primary school to meet the revised projected demand. 3.4 Although underpinned by the best available data and a tried and tested model that has been used extensively across the UK by Edge Analytics, it is recognised that pupil projection modelling in relation to major sites retain unavoidable risk and uncertainty. This is particularly the case when projecting over a significant timeframe. Given almost a decade of development is yet to be delivered in Dargavel Village, the future demand projections produced from the modelling carry an inevitable degree of uncertainty. 3.5 The Edge Analytics model—which projects over a 15-year period and has assumed a completion of the Dargavel Village development in 2033, has indicated a peak in non-denominational demand of 1,131 in 2033/34. This is expected to reduce over the second half of the 2030’s to a slightly lower stabilised level of demand. This pattern of a peak demand followed by a lower stabilised level of demand is evidenced in other large-scale developments across the UK. 3.6 In addition, further scenario modelling, informed by one year of live data for the forthcoming 2024/25 year suggests that if P1 admissions continued long-term at this rate—higher than the Edge Analytics modelling, a peak demand of around 1,500 could emerge in 2033/34. Discussions with Edge Analytics indicate this scenario is not consistent with the experience of large community growth areas elsewhere in the UK and would place Dargavel Village in the very upper tier of education demand profile. 3.7 In this context and based on the core Edge Analytics modelling (peak demand of 1,131), the Education and Children’s Services Policy board agreed that a second school should be planned for to expand non-denominational education provision and deliver 800 pupil places in addition to the existing capacity of Dargavel Primary School (434). 3.8 This followed engagement with Dargavel Parent Council and their strong advocacy for a second primary school to be delivered. It was also agreed that options would be identified for managing potential upper end projection scenarios, should this be required in the long-term. 3.9 Therefore, the proposal for consultation is to deliver a new non-denominational primary school within Dargavel Village for 800 pupils, and to revise catchment arrangements between Dargavel Primary School and the new school. The proposal notes that that the catchment primary school for all denominational pupils in Dargavel Village will remain St John Bosco Primary School. 3.10 In accordance with Section 2 and Schedule 1, Para. 2 and 4 of the 2010 Act, a proposal to establish a new school and a proposal to vary any admission arrangements for a school, including altering or establishing the catchment area of a school, is a relevant proposal for the purposes of, and subject to, the 2010 Act.
Page 47
4 School Configuration Options 4.1 Although the Council identified an unavoidable requirement to deliver a new school and additional permanent non-denominational primary school capacity of 800, it is recognised that there are options that can be considered to achieve an expansion in capacity at this scale. Option 1—fulfil the need through delivery of a new 800 capacity primary school. Option 2—fulfil the need through delivery of a new smaller capacity school of circa 600 and extend capacity at the existing Dargavel Primary School which is now possible following an additional land parcel adjacent to the existing school being secured from BAE systems. Option 3—fulfil the need through delivery of a new smaller school of circa 600 capacity and extend the catchment of Bishopton Primary School to encapsulate an element of Dargavel Village. This option recognises that a degree of surplus capacity exists at Bishopton Primary School that could support demand from an expanded catchment area encompassing an appropriately sized element of Dargavel Village that is within closest proximity to the school and benefits from a safe walking route. Option 4—fulfil the need through a combination of both 2 and 3, where a much smaller new school is delivered of a similar scale to the existing Dargavel Primary, with the existing Dargavel Primary extended and Bishopton Primary catchment extended to take in an element of Dargavel Village. 4.2 In assessing the options, the key consideration focused on the following assessment criteria: • To what extent the option delivers a learning environment which best supports the delivery of the curriculum and the best educational experience for all learners. • To what extent the option supports environmentally sustainable facilities with lower carbon footprints, satisfactory building conditions, sufficiency levels and education facilities. In addition to these core educational assessment criteria, additional wider factors were considered as part of the assessment process. • To what extent the option would assist in preserving the broad conclusion of the 2019 consultation exercise to maintain a clearly identifiable primary school provision and catchment serving Dargavel Village, whilst retaining a separately identifiable catchment for Bishopton Primary School which should remain focused on the needs of the historic village. • Given the uncertainty and risk in relation to the potential for further additional capacity demand to emerge, to what extent the option supports the Council to maintain flexibility to respond to potential upper demand scenarios emerging in the future. • The extent to which the proposal can deliver facilities that would, outside of school operating times, provide flexible space to support a wide range of community activities and uses within Dargavel Village. This acknowledges community feedback during the pre-consultation engagement that accessible and flexible community facilities is a key requirement the community would like to see fulfilled. This also recognises the existing Dargavel Primary School design failed to adequately meet this expectation. • The financial cost and value for money of the proposed solution. 4.3 Based on the above criteria, the option appraisal assessment has identified that option 1, delivery of a new 800 school provides the best overall school configuration outcome. 4.4 A 3 to 18 campus for Dargavel and Bishopton has previously been suggested by some members of the community. This consultation does not propose to alter the catchment area for Park Mains High School. A detailed analysis of high school demand and provision for the Park Mains catchment, and the Council’s decision to extend Park Mains High School was subject to a Report to Board on 24th August 2023 which can be accessed via www.renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 48
5 Site Option Appraisal 5.1 Renfrewshire Council began identifying and assessing potential sites within the Dargavel area to locate a second primary school in December 2022. Since then, there have been additional sites suggested by both BAE Systems as part of discussions in relation to the Dargavel Village development as well as suggestions that have been promoted directly by members of the community. 5.2 The key factors which have been used to guide the site search by Council officers, guide discussions with BAE Systems and the assessment of all options identified throughout the process have focused on a series of key criteria outlined and explained in the site evaluation matrix (Appendix 4). 5.3 This matrix has been used in an appraisal assessment where all the identified sites were evaluated against these criteria and the associated site evaluation matrix is outlined in Appendix 4. Sites which did not meet the required site size were automatically discounted. 5.4 As detailed in Appendix 4, the site referred to as E1 to the north end of Craigton Drive within the Dargavel Village masterplan, has been identified as the preferred location and is identified on the map provided at Appendix 5. 6. Catchment Proposals 6.1 The impact of this proposal is illustrated through existing and proposed catchment maps for Dargavel Primary School and the proposed new primary school within Dargavel Village and is attached as Appendix 2 to this report. 6.2 It is proposed that, if approved, the catchment changes would be implemented to take effect following construction of the new school which it is anticipated will be in 2027. 6.3 If the proposals are approved, all pupils living in affected addresses currently attending Dargavel Primary School would be entitled to continue attending to the end of primary 7. If they are entitled to free school transport, in line with the Council’s transport policy, then this entitlement would also continue. 6.4 Siblings of pupils currently attending Dargavel Primary School would also be entitled to attend the school with their sibling if their older sibling is registered in the school when they enrol. 6.5 Free school transport for new primary 1 pupils would only be provided in instances where the pupil enrols in the school at a time when their sibling still attends the school and where that sibling is entitled to free school transport.
Page 49
7 Educational Benefits Statement 7.1 Under the 2010 Act where the Council has formulated a relevant proposal, the Council must prepare an educational benefits statement (“an EBS”) in accordance with Sections 1 and 3 of the 2010 Act. 7.2 The Educational Benefits Statement must include the following: a) the Council’s assessment of the likely educational effects of a relevant proposal (if implemented) on: (i) the pupils of any affected school; (ii) any other users of the school’s facilities; (iii) any children who would (in the future but for implementation) be likely to become pupils of the school; or (iv) the pupils of any other schools in the Council’s area, b) the Council’s assessment of any other likely effects of the proposal (if implemented), c) an explanation of how the Council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse educational effects that may arise from the proposal (if implemented), d) a description of the educational benefits which the Council believes will result from implementation of the proposal (with reference to the persons whom it believes will derive them), as well as the Council’s reasons for coming to those beliefs. 7.3 Educational Benefits Statement 7.3.1 Section 3 of this document sets out the strategic context and rationale for the identified need to deliver a second primary school as part of increasing by 800 the non-denominational primary school capacity serving Dargavel. 7.3.2 The educational benefits of the proposed building and the proposed location as outlined in the proposal: • will ensure sufficient primary school capacity to meet projected demand, providing catchment school places for catchment children. This will be monitored on an ongoing basis. • ensures all schools serving Dargavel Village and Bishopton have a viable and sustainable school roll, located within the local area and can serve children, families, and the community of Dargavel. • ensures continuity of learning as children will go through all stages of their primary education in a 21st century learning environment which will accommodate future demand—future-proofed for peak projections and is sector-leading in its design. • will provide the school with a learning environment where it can build a culture of the highest expectations; placed at the heart of the community this will contribute to the creation a community identity for Dargavel Village which can be grown through community engagement and learning, and which sends the most positive messages about the children and their potential. • dining areas will be welcoming, naturally ventilated areas with immediate access to outdoor dining and the IT infrastructure allows for cashless catering arrangements which will enhance the inclusive ethos of the school while supporting the efficient management of dining sittings.
Page 50
7.4 Learning, Teaching and Assessment 7.4.1 The Council has been working with a Space Planning Consultant who has worked with key stakeholders to develop a strategic brief on what a 21st Century learning environment should look like as part of the proposed new school. This includes classroom spaces which will enable children to experience the full range of learning and teaching approaches with the facility for whole class learning; for children to work and learn together in groups of different sizes and to learn independently based on planned learning. This will provide an environment where teachers will be able to give children a voice in their own learning and the opportunity to lead their learning. 7.4.2 The digital connectivity within the proposed new school will provide the opportunity for children to develop digital learning skills and learn through digital learning methodologies. 7.4.3 Proposals include plans for learning plazas to support project-based learning; multi-purpose spaces which will allow children to learn in different contexts in all curricular areas; and break out spaces where teachers will be able to develop play pedagogy developing skills for learning life and work in all children. 7.4.4 This wide range of learning spaces will improve the quality of assessment and professional judgement as teachers will be able to plan learning on a stage and level basis which can be delivered and assess across more than one class, allowing teachers to develop shared understanding of assessment standards. 7.5 Curriculum—Developing the 4 capacities in all 4 contexts of learning 7.5.1 Over and above classroom spaces, the proposed school environment will provide opportunities to experience the ethos and life of the school. The children will develop as confident individuals through whole school activities including school shows; choirs and instrumental bands; school clubs and opportunities to work with community partners in a range of different activities. 7.5.2 The planned environment and assembly spaces will provide opportunities to build positive relationships across the school; opportunities for inputs from partners on key aspects of personal and social education including keeping safe and healthy; building positive self-esteem and self-efficacy. 7.5.3 Outdoor spaces will be designed to encourage and enhance pupil participation in outdoor learning and deliver positive experiences of outdoor play, supporting children to become responsible citizens and effective contributors. 7.5.4 High quality sport and P.E. facilities will provide space for children to participate in a wide range of sport and exercise supporting the delivery of the Health and Wellbeing curriculum. 7.5.5 The proposed location of a new school, in the heart of the community and sufficiently close to Dargavel Primary School and Bishopton Primary School, will allow children to participate in activities where they can work together to improve their community; to help vulnerable people in their community and so grow their understanding about what it means to be responsible citizens. 7.5.6 The school’s proposed location within the catchment of Park Mains High School will allow pupils to benefit from well-established cluster planning activities as well as highly effective support for primary/secondary transition.
Page 51
7.6 Supporting Children with additional support needs 7.6.1 The range of spaces that can be delivered within the proposed new school will enable the school leadership team to design facilities which support children who require targeted support— assessed through Renfrewshire Council’s staged intervention policy. This may include break out spaces which allow for targeted intervention for groups of children who require support in specific areas to achieve expected levels of achievement, and flexible space which could be used for sensory rooms for neurodivergent children and space for nurture bases and safe spaces. Additionally, spaces can be created for visiting partners to support children through counselling or group work where there is identified need. 7.6.2 The creation of this high-quality learning environment will send positive messages about all children supporting an ethos of inclusion and equality where all children feel valued. This is supported by the range of spaces available for whole school development on issues of equality. The proposed building will be compliant with the provisions of the Equality Act (2010). 7.7 Career Long Professional Learning and Leadership Development 7.7.1 The proposed building is a 21st century work environment where teachers will have enhanced facility to work together on planning learning and school improvement activity. The digital capability and high quality work spaces will enhance this further providing potential for improvements for digital learning and to maximise the possibilities presented by Artificial Intelligence. 7.7.2 The quality of assessment and moderation will also be improved as there is high quality space for teachers to work together, share practice and learn from each other. The proposed site also presents opportunity for the 2 primary schools and Dargavel primary school to improve through looking outward.
Page 52
8 Wider Site Considerations 8.1 The preferred site has been assessed as fully meeting all the criteria for the new building. The Council owns the land; it provides the necessary space for the new school building and is sufficiently distanced from the existing primary school, whilst maximising opportunity for active travel and supporting environmental considerations. In addition, the site presents the most deliverable proposal in terms of timeframe and costs for completion. This positions this site as the optimum location for ensuring continuity and sustainability in children’s learning and delivering the planned provision within Dargavel village. 8.2 The site will allow the school design to plan for delivering high quality space for community use outwith school hours as well as additional outdoor sport pitch provision in this new and growing area, enabling social capital and community involvement in developing the use of the space. This will strengthen community and school capacity to promote health, wellbeing and resilience. Attention will be given on creating new opportunities for the local community. As a result, the proposal will provide not only a high-quality educational environment for children but will also realise significant outcomes for the entire community. 8.3 The site position within the heart of the Dargavel Village and the central amenity parkland area, coupled with the proposed catchments, maximises the opportunity for safe active travel to school, for both the new school and existing Dargavel primary and maximises convenience for community use outwith school hours. 8.4 Consideration of the integration of the proposed school site with Dargavel Village road and pathway infrastructure will be part of the formal planning application process and will ensure safe traffic flows and optimum road safety for pedestrians and all road users. The infrastructure considerations will include measures such as active travel infrastructure to primarily support children walking, wheeling, or cycling to the central location of both schools, as well as providing effective drop off/pick up arrangements for private cars and school bus services. Council Officers will work collaboratively on issues related to managing traffic and road safety in and around the existing school site and proposed school site. Previous learning and community feedback will inform the future design process. 8.5 Delivering effective road restrictions around the proposed new school and Dargavel Primary School will be considered holistically to promote the best environment possible for travel to and from the school grounds. Traffic management schemes will be designed to promote positive and considerate pedestrian and road user behaviour in the proximity of the school. 8.6 Officers from Environment, Housing and Infrastructure will lead the development and assessment of safe walking routes and a school travel plan to ensure the network around the proposed new school is safe. 8.7 Initial engagement has commenced with a transport consultant to identify early opportunities to pro-actively incorporate such infrastructure and wider design considerations early into the school design process and to support the more substantial work associated with the transport assessment which will be subsequently carried out as part of the future planning application process.
Page 53
9 Revised Catchment Considerations 9.1 The revised catchment areas have been identified from the number of houses planned in the Dargavel Village and the projected pupil yield from those planned houses. This has been supplemented by data gathered about the roll of the current primary school and indications from the actual number of children in the school, which will be closely monitored on an ongoing basis. 9.2 Despite the inherent uncertainty as projections stretch over a longer period, the proposal is designed to provide a viable and sustainable pupil roll in both primary schools both in the short and long term. The proposed catchments will allow teacher staffing levels and stage classification arrangements to be effective, and children will be able to learn in a sustainable way in their local area. 9.3 The revised catchment areas improve the options for safe and sustainable travel as they reduce travel distances, making walking to school highly viable for almost all children attending the school. This has benefits for the children’s health and well-being as well as having a positive environmental impact with the potential for a significant and sustained reduction in children being brought to school by car. 9.4 The proposed new primary school will be part of the Park Mains High School cluster comprising Bargarran, Barsail, Bishopton, Dargavel, Rashielea, Langbank and Inchinnan primary schools. As such it will benefit from existing strong relationships with the associated secondary school. There will be an increased roll for the secondary school, but all projection work undertaken by the Council and consideration of viable options indicate this increase can be accommodated with a planned extension to the existing school, the design of which is part of ongoing engagement.
Page 54
10 Statutory Public Consultation Process 10.1 This document has been issued by Renfrewshire Council for consultation in accordance with the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 10.2 What is a statutory consultation? In Scotland, local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure the adequate and efficient provision of education in their areas. If a local authority proposes to change any part of the existing education provision in its area, then it must engage in a formal consultation process in the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2021. This act aims to ensure that all major changes which affect schools are subject to clear consultation with parents, children, young people and communities. 10.3 When does the Statutory Public Consultation start? The consultation will start on Monday 29th January 2024 and close on 26th March 2024, which includes a period of 30 school days. 10.4 Who will have access to this proposal document? The proposal document has been made available to all interested parties, including parent Councils, Education Scotland, parents and carers of children attending the establishments affected, Staff Trade Unions and any other users of the establishments as detailed in the distribution list. The proposal document is published on the Council website at: https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ dargavel-school-consultation Copies are also available at Renfrewshire House, Dargavel Primary School and local libraries. Copies can also be made available in alternative formats or translated for readers whose first language is not English. 10.5 What if I notice an error in the document? If any inaccuracies or omissions are discovered in this proposal document, either by the Council or any person, the Council will determine if relevant information has been omitted or if there has been any inaccuracy. The Council may then take appropriate action, which may include the issue of a correction notice, the reissuing of the proposal document or the revision of the timescale for the consultation period, if appropriate. In that event, relevant consultees and Education Scotland will be advised. 10.6 How will I get a chance to give my opinion? You will be able to give your opinion on the proposal: • Online at— https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ dargavel-school-consultation • By completing an online response form at https://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ dargavel-school-consultation • By submitting a paper copy of the response form, attached at Appendix 7 • By emailing— Dargavel2consultation@renfrewshire.gov.uk • In writing to Gerry Lyons, Interim Head of Education, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1LE All responses must be submitted by no later than close of business Tuesday 26th March 2024.
Page 55
10.7 Will there be any meetings for the public? There will be a public meeting on Monday 19th February at 7pm in Dargavel Primary School. This meeting will provide an opportunity for interested parties to hear about the proposal from Council officers, ask questions and have their views recorded so that these can be considered as part of the consultation process. Other public events will be held and details will be communicated directly to the groups listed. Advance notice of specific questions or issues to be raised at the public meeting will be accepted up to Friday 16th February 2024. This will allow all issues to be covered and give those who may not be comfortable speaking publicly their opportunity to be heard. A note will be taken of comments, questions, and officer responses at the public session. The notes will be published on the Council website and a copy will be made available on request. The notes will be forwarded to Education Scotland along with all other submissions and comments that are received by the Council during the consultation process. 10.8 Will any other agencies be involved in the process? The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 requires that a report on the proposal on the proposal is prepared by Education Scotland. Education Scotland may attend the public meetings. Once the statutory public consultation period comes to an end, Education Scotland have three weeks to consider the educational aspects of the proposal and submit a report to the Council. Education Scotland receives a copy of relevant papers from the Council, including: • A copy of the proposal, paper copies of the written representations or a summary of them (if Education Scotland agree) • A note of the oral representations made at the public meeting sessions; and • Any other related documents Education Scotland may visit schools as part of their consideration of the proposal and meet with children, staff and parents who may be affected by the proposal. Upon receipt of the proposal document and other relevant documentation, Education Scotland will consider the educational aspects of the proposal. They will ensure that their report takes account of: • The educational benefits statement • The representations received by the Council; and • Any further representations made directly to Education Scotland on educational aspect of the proposal which is considered relevant. The consultation report that the Council publishes following the statutory public consultation must include the report from Education Scotland in full. 10.9 Will the outcome of the consultation be made public? The Head of Service (Education) will prepare a report on the results of the consultation process. The report will take account of all Education Scotland recommendations. This report will be published in electronic and printed formats and will be advertised in the Paisley Daily Express and the Renfrewshire Gazette. It will be available on the Council website and from Council Headquarters. The report will include a record of the total number of written representations made during the consultation period, a summary of written and oral representations and the Council’s response to recommendations made by Education Scotland. A copy of the Education Scotland report will be an appendix to the consultation report which will be published and available for further consideration for a period of more than 3 weeks ahead of presentation to Elected members in May 2024. 10.10 When will the Council make a decision on the outcomes of the consultation? The consultation report, together with any other relevant documentation, will be considered by the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board, who will make a decision in May 2024.
Page 56
Proposal Appendix 1 Roll Projection—Edge Analytics Dargavel Primary School 600 800 1000 1200 1400 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35 2035-36 2036-37 2037-38 2038-39 530 Scenario HOUSING-E HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 140) HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 150) Scenario 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35 2035-36 2036-37 2037-38 2038-39 HOUSING-E 573 666 773 861 960 1017 1064 1096 1121 1125 1131 1095 1063 1035 1013 995 HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 140) 604 729 872 996 1133 1229 1314 1353 1385 1391 1399 1356 1318 1284 1257 1235 HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 150) 614 750 906 1043 1195 1305 1405 1448 1483 1490 1500 1454 1412 1377 1347 1324 Scenario Description HOUSING-E The HOUSING-E scenario includes the impacts of planned housing on cohort size, through the application of primary and secondary pupil yield factors to a trajectory of planned housing growth. The pupil yield factors have been derived by Edge Analytics, using pupil yield evidence from a sample of dwelling growth areas, located in Renfrewshire and across Scotland. HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted – 140) The HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 140) scenario uses assumptions that are consistent with the HOUSING-E scenario. In this scenario, the P1 intake is adjusted to reflect 140 P1 Registrations at Dargavel Village Primary School in August 2023 (2023-24). For Bishopton Primary School and St John Bosco Primary School, P1 Registrations of 40 and 23 respectively have been assumed. HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted – 150) The HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 150) scenario uses assumptions that are consistent with the HOUSING-E scenario. In this scenario, the P1 intake is adjusted to reflect 150 P1 Registrations at Dargavel Village Primary School in August 2023 (2023-24). For Bishopton Primary School and St John Bosco Primary School, P1 Registrations of 40 and 23 respectively have been assumed.
Page 57
Power BI Desktop Scenario 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 2031-32 2032-33 2033-34 2034-35 2035-36 2036-37 2037-38 2038-39 HOUSING-E 573 666 773 861 960 1017 1064 1096 1121 1125 1131 1095 1063 1035 1013 995 HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 140) 604 729 872 996 1133 1229 1314 1353 1385 1391 1399 1356 1318 1284 1257 1235 HOUSING-E (P1 Adjusted - 150) 614 750 906 1043 1195 1305 1405 1448 1483 1490 1500 1454 1412 1377 1347 1324 School Dargavel Primary Roll Projection - Edge Analytics Proposal Appendix 2 Current Dargavel Catchment Map Proposed Dargavel Catchment Map
Page 58
Proposal Appendix 3 Streets affected by proposal—Dargavel Primary School and a New Primary School to be built at Dargavel Village As at 28th November 2023 Aberlady Way Abington Circle Acer Drive Alness Way Applecross Drive Arrochar Drive Ballantrae Crescent Balnagown Drive Barbeg Crescent Barmore Crescent Barmore Drive Barmore Wynd Barrangary Road Birch Road Birchtree Road Boghall Drive Boghall Place Bolerno Avenue Bolerno Circle Bolerno Crescent Bolerno Gardens Bolerno Place Bolerno Wynd Broadford Place Catterline Way Cedarwood Gardens Central Park View Cherrytree Gardens Colintraive Crescent Craigmuir Drive Craigmuir Road Craigmuir Way Craigton Drive Crail Crescent Crosshill Avenue Crosshill Mews Crosshill Road Crosshill Wynd Culrain Drive Dalbeattie Way Dalgety Drive Dornie Way Drumbeg Road Dunbeath Circle Dundonnell Road Durness Avenue Elder Crescent Elie Drive Fern Way Forge Crescent Forge Way Gatehead Avenue Gatehead Crescent Gatehead Drive Gatehead Grove Gatehead Wynd Girvan Terrace Glenluce Drive Greenock Road Inveraray Road Kilmartin Gardens Kilmelford Drive Kirkconnel Road Kirriemuir Circle Lairg View Limetree Lane Lochside Avenue Lochview Wynd Luss Grove Melness Grove Melvich Way Millbank Avenue Millbank Circle Millbank Crescent Millbank Drive Moffat Gardens Mosshall Drive Nairn Drive Northbrae Drive Northbrae View Ormsary View Plockton Way Portpatrick Avenue Portree Crescent Rossland Crescent Sanquhar Way Skelmorlie Avenue Slateford Road Station Lane Station Road Tain Avenue Tayinloan Way Thurso Crescent Torrisdale Crescent Ullapool Grove Whitemoss Way Whitemoss Wynd Whithorn Crescent The development is still under construction and more addresses may be added to this list, which fall within the boundary of the development site.
Page 59
Dargavel—New Primary School—Site Option Matrix Proposal Appendix 4 SITES Ref Site Name Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost Total Score Council officer comments 1 Site W7 (Dargavel Masterplan) 10.9 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Not considered an optimum location due to close proximity (diagonally across road) from existing Dargavel Primary School 2 Site C1 (Dargavel Masterplan— adj existing DPS) 2.5 acres = FAIL 3 Site A (periphery of Masterplan —west of Whithorn Crescent) 5.93 acres = FAIL 4 Site B (periphery of Masterplan west of plot W11) 8.08 acres = PASS 3 2 3 2 10 This site has the disadvantage of being accessed primarily via residential streets through masterplan plots W9, W10 and W11. This is very likely to result in adverse impacts for residents in these streets. Although a distinct new road access could be provided to Site B this would significantly add to the construction costs. DEFINITIONS Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing Site is large enough to accommodate proposed scale of school capacity Site is less than 1km walking distance from majority of school catchment residents Site is owned by RC, BAE or other. *see notes Site is identified for future development in adopted Local Development Plan This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. *see notes SCORING Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing PASS = Site is > 8acres in size 3 = majority of catchment <1km walking distance 3 = site is owned by RC 3 = land designated for development 3 = no anticipated additional costs FAIL = Site is < 8acres in size 2 = less than 50% of catchment <1km walking distance 2 = site is owned by BAE 2 = land has no definite status (eg. Unallocated land) 2 = either significant earthworks, new road, additional utility connections required for development site 1 = majority of catchment >1km walking distance 1 = site is owned by other than RC or BAE 1 = site is allocated for open space or green belt 1 = more than one significant additional cost required
Page 60
Ref Site Name Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost Total Score Council officer comments 5 Site C (periphery of Masterplan —west of plot W8) 6.28 acres = FAIL 6 Site D (periphery of Masterplan —west of plot W5) 6.00 acres = FAIL 7 Site E (periphery of Masterplan —East of Slateford Road) 4.50 acres = FAIL 8 Site F (periphery of Masterplan —between Birch Road and railway line) 4.99 acres = FAIL 9 Site E1 (Dargavel Masterplan) 8.5 acres = PASS 3 3 3 3 12 10 Site E2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 8.5 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Not considered as optimum a site as E1 due to closer proximity to existing Dargavel Primary School 11 Site W2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 9.1 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Site W2 is closer to planned housing development in Dargavel Masterplan than site E1. This could lead to impacts on residential amenity through the planned introduction of floodlighting for the community sports provision at the new school 12 Newton Road Playing Fields, Bishopton 7.5 acres = FAIL 13 Holm Park, Bishopton 9.5 acres = PASS 1 1 1 2 5 Owned by Community Development Trust and very unlikely to be available for new school development. Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 14 North of Ingliston Drive 9.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 15 East of Slateford Road, Bishopton 8.2 acres = PASS 3 1 1 1 5 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment.
Page 61
Ref Site Name Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost Total Score Council officer comments 16 West of Greenock Road, Bishopton 8.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 17 East of Greenock Road, Bishopton 8.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 18 Ingliston Drive, Bishopton 2.3 acres = FAIL 19 Matey’s Field, Bishopton (Camphill Gardens) 1.5 acres = FAIL 20 Site W (Parent Council)— Station Road, Bishopton 6.4 acres (tbc) = FAIL 21 Site X (Parent Council)— Gladstone Hill, Dargavel 27.5 acres = PASS 3 2 1 1 7 Site is designated as open space in Dargavel Masterplan with a presumption against development. Current landform (steeply sloping site) would result in significantly increased costs of construction compared to Site E1. 22 Site Y (Parent Council)— West of Slateford Road, Bishopton 61.7 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 23 Site Z (Parent Council)— Ferry Road / Greenock Road, Bishopton 70.4 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. *NOTES Size Ownership of land Anticipated additional cost of developing 8 acres considered the minimum size required for an 800 capacity primary school and necessary community facilities. Sites smaller than this threshold not considered further This is scored based on the speed and ease of delivery of the school. A third party owner will inevitably involve negotiations and costs to purchase (not otherwise accounted for elsewhere) and lead to a longer timescale for delivery. A BAE owned site is considered to be quicker due to their imperative to find a solution to assist future housebuilding but not as quick as a Council owned site. This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. Sites with no existing or committed road access of a suitable nature or with significant earthwork requirements will add significantly to the cost of the development
Page 62
Proposal Appendix 5 Map of proposed Site for Proposed new Primary school
Page 63
www.renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 64
Parents, carers and residents of Dargavel are being asked for their views on the location of the new school and the catchment area. Have your say here or online Visit www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/dargavel-school- consultation for details on how to take part. This includes information sessions, public meetings, informal drop-ins and written feedback. Dargavel school consultation Welcome to this statutory consultation event on a proposed new primary school in Dargavel and its catchment. Appendix B
Page 65
What you have told us so far A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT 98% support the community having access to the school outwith school hours for a variety of activities—outdoor sports, fitness and exercise classes, social activities, children and toddler groups, adult learning classes, health and wellbeing support. Parent and carer priorities… a school in the heart of the community, the right size, good playground space, considered parking and drop off, a 5G floodlit artificial pitch, traffic management, not open plan, quiet spaces, community campus, inclusive of P1 to P7. Space planning is the process of analysing how space in a building and in rooms will be used. We consider possible space uses, respond to the needs of those who will use the space, and we ensure spaces are used efficiently. Informed by 651 survey responses and stakeholder interviews with pupils, parents and carers, community representatives, community groups and parent groups, in late 2023. Our process—to listen and discuss, to agree and test the vision and ambition, to develop a spacial model to support the school design. Space planning
Page 66
Programme timeline (Subject to the outcome of statutory consultation) A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT September 2023 to March 2024 January to February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 March 2025 January to March 2024 March to June 2024 July 2025 July to December 2024 August 2027 • Tender development for design team, architects and engineers • Space Planning engagement and development of concept designs Site Investigation Works on proposed site E1 Architect appointment • Engineer appointment • Main contractor appointment Planning application Statutory Consultation on a proposed new primary school (its proposed site and a catchment review) Detailed design Elected Members will consider the responses received from the statutory consultation. Future timeline will depend on the outcome of the Board decision. Construction on site Technical design conclusion Proposed opening date
Page 67
Vision and Objectives A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT Vision The new primary school in Dargavel Village will provide an innovative & inclusive learning environment for 800 pupils. It will provide facilities to support community use & prioritise design approaches that are flexible and sustainable. Innovative Infrastructure to support embedded technology & enhance the learning experience Welcoming entrance experience for visitors, community & parents The heart of the community Spaces to support multiple activities and users A building which is easy to maintain & repair Low impact energy solutions Systems to allow the shut down of zones when not in use Simple building controls Spaces that can open up and close down according to activities Spaces that can be easily adapted from one use to another to support future changes in demand Zoning to allow out of hours access to indoors & outdoors facilities & multi- functional space A design that supports flexible use of spaces by multiple users Maximise opportunities for the whole learning community & wider community Range of quiet / retreat spaces to support individual learning preferences Careful consideration of acoustics and noise levels & volume of spaces Spaces that support & nurture Variety of learning environments to suit age, stage & need Outdoor learning spaces that support learning activities, health & wellbeing & foster wider participation Inclusive Community focused Flexible Sustainable Objectives A vision, key themes and ideas emerged from what people told us during the space planning.
Page 68
Space Planning—Multi-Use spaces A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT PLEASE NOTE: All plans and images shown are examples of how the proposed new school could look, based on feedback from the space planning—these are not actual designs. 2 Court Sports Hall & Drama /Music Studio (+ Adult changing to support community use) Life Skills / Literacy Space (Learning, Community & Afterschool activity) STEM / Numeracy Space (Learning, Community & Afterschool activity)
Page 69
Space Planning—Learning spaces A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT Priorities • Differentiation of furniture types & layouts across key stages • Free flow between class bases and breakout • Acoustic separation & shelter to support focus 8–10 3–8 10 + PLEASE NOTE: All plans and images shown are examples of how the proposed new school could look, based on feedback from the space planning—these are not actual designs.
Page 70
Space Planning—Support spaces A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT Strategy • Range of semi-enclosed and enclosed opportunities within class bases, breakout for learners to retreat for shelter, focused or regulatory activities Class bases Breakout Pupil SupportRetreat Space PLEASE NOTE: All plans and images shown are examples of how the proposed new school could look, based on feedback from the space planning—these are not actual designs.
Page 71
Space Planning—Outdoor spaces A PROPOSED NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL FOR DARGAVEL VILLAGE—PRE-CONSULTATION ENGAGEMENT Opportunities for learning & the community • Growing space • Outdoor classrooms • Wildlife • Fitness • Playing PLEASE NOTE: All plans and images shown are examples of how the proposed new school could look, based on feedback from the space planning—these are not actual designs.
Page 72
Site locations SITE PLANNING AND SELECTION How we approached selecting a proposed site for a new primary school An options exercise was carried out by Renfrewshire Council to look at potential sites for a proposed second primary school. Five sites within Dargavel Village Masterplan were suggested to BAE by the council—sites 1,2,9,10 and 11. BAE suggested five more sites 3,4,5,6 and 8. Six more sites were then considered by the council. These were sites greater than eight acres and immediately on the periphery of Bishopton or Dargavel Village—sites 12,13,14,15,16 and 17. Seven additional sites were suggested by the Parent Council and other community representatives. • All sites were scored in respect of size, active travel credentials, ownership, land use designation and cost, allowing scores to be assigned and a proposed site identified for consultation. • Scores between 4 and 12 were recorded with site E1 coming out on top.
Page 73
Site locations SITE PLANNING AND SELECTION Ref Site Name 1 Site W7 (Dargavel Masterplan) 2 Site C1 (Dargavel Masterplan— adj existing DPS) 3 Site A (periphery of Masterplan— west of Whithorn Crescent) 4 Site B (periphery of Masterplan west of plot W11) 5 Site C (periphery of Masterplan— west of plot W8) 6 Site D (periphery of Masterplan— west of plot W5) Key New School site options Proposed site Other options considered Existing Dargavel Primary School Village Centre Access routes Constructed Propossed Ref Site Name 7 Site E (periphery of Masterplan— East of Slateford Road) 8 Site F (periphery of Masterplan— between Birch Road and railway line) 9 Site E1 (Dargavel Masterplan) 10 Site E2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 11 Site W2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 12 Newton Road Playing Fields, Bishopton 13 Holm Park, Bishopton 14 North of Ingliston Drive 15 East of Slateford Road, Bishopton Ref Site Name 16 West of Greenock Road, Bishopton 17 East of Greenock Road, Bishopton 18 Ingliston Drive, Bishopton 19 Matey’s Field, Bishopton (Camphill Gardens) 20 Site W (Parent Council)— Station Road, Bishopton 21 Site X (Parent Council)— Gladstone Hill, Dargavel 22 Site Y (Parent Council)— West of Slateford Road, Bishopton 23 Site Z (Parent Council)— Ferry Road/Greenock Road, Bishopton © Crown Copyright and database rights 2024. OS Licence number 100023417
Page 74
Site analysis/scoring SITE PLANNING AND SELECTION Definitions Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing Site is large enough to accommodate proposed scale of school capacity Site is less than 1km walking distance from majority of school catchment residents Site is owned by RC, BAE or other. *see notes Site is identified for future development in adopted Local Development Plan This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. *see notes Scoring Site Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing PASS = Site is > 8acres in size 3 = majority of catchment <1km walking distance 3 = site is owned by RC 3 = land designated for development 3 = no anticipated additional costs FAIL = Site is < 8acres in size 2 = less than 50% of catchment <1km walking distance 2 = site is owned by BAE 2 = land has no definite status (eg. Unallocated land) 2 = either significant earthworks, new road, additional utility connections required for development site 1 = majority of catchment >1km walking distance 1 = site is owned by other than RC or BAE 1 = site is allocated for open space or green belt 1 = more than one significant additional cost required Sites Ref Site Name Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost Total Score Council officer comments 1 Site W7 (Dargavel Masterplan) 10.9 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Not considered an optimum location due to close proximity (diagonally across road) from existing Dargavel Primary School 2 Site C1 (Dargavel Masterplan— adj existing DPS) 2.5 acres = FAIL 3 Site A (periphery of Masterplan— west of Whithorn Crescent) 5.93 acres = FAIL 4 Site B (periphery of Masterplan west of plot W11) 8.08 acres = PASS 3 2 3 2 10 This site has the disadvantage of being accessed primarily via residential streets through masterplan plots W9, W10 and W11. This is very likely to result in adverse impacts for residents in these streets. Although a distinct new road access could be provided to Site B this would significantly add to the construction costs. 5 Site C (periphery of Masterplan— west of plot W8) 6.28 acres = FAIL 6 Site D (periphery of Masterplan— west of plot W5) 6.00 acres = FAIL 7 Site E (periphery of Masterplan— East of Slateford Road) 4.50 acres = FAIL 8 Site F (periphery of Masterplan —between Birch Road and railway line) 4.99 acres = FAIL 9 Site E1 (Dargavel Masterplan) 8.5 acres = PASS 3 3 3 3 12 10 Site E2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 8.5 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Not considered as optimum a site as E1 due to closer proximity to existing Dargavel Primary School 11 Site W2 (Dargavel Masterplan) 9.1 acres = PASS 3 2 3 3 11 Site W2 is closer to planned housing development in Dargavel Masterplan than site E1. This could lead to impacts on residential amenity through the planned introduction of floodlighting for the community sports provision at the new school 12 Newton Road Playing Fields, Bishopton 7.5 acres = FAIL 13 Holm Park, Bishopton 9.5 acres = PASS 1 1 1 2 5 Owned by Community Development Trust and very unlikely to be available for new school development. Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. *Notes Size Ownership of land Anticipated additional cost of developing 8 acres considered the minimum size required for an 800 capacity primary school and necessary community facilities. Sites smaller than this threshold not considered further This is scored based on the speed and ease of delivery of the school. A third party owner will inevitably involve negotiations and costs to purchase (not otherwise accounted for elsewhere) and lead to a longer timescale for delivery. A BAE owned site is considered to be quicker due to their imperative to find a solution to assist future housebuilding but not as quick as a Council owned site. This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. Sites with no existing or committed road access of a suitable nature or with significant earthwork requirements will add significantly to the cost of the development
Page 75
Sites Ref Site Name Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost Total Score Council officer comments 14 North of Ingliston Drive 9.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 15 East of Slateford Road, Bishopton 8.2 acres = PASS 3 1 1 1 5 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 16 West of Greenock Road, Bishopton 8.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 17 East of Greenock Road, Bishopton 8.0 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 18 Ingliston Drive, Bishopton 2.3 acres = FAIL 19 Matey’s Field, Bishopton (Camphill Gardens) 1.5 acres = FAIL 20 Site W (Parent Council)— Station Road, Bishopton 6.4 acres (tbc) = FAIL 21 Site X (Parent Council)— Gladstone Hill, Dargavel 27.5 acres = PASS 3 2 1 1 7 Site is designated as open space in Dargavel Masterplan with a presumption against development. Current landform (steeply sloping site) would result in significantly increased costs of construction compared to Site E1. 22 Site Y (Parent Council)— West of Slateford Road, Bishopton 61.7 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. 23 Site Z (Parent Council)— Ferry Road / Greenock Road, Bishopton 70.4 acres = PASS 1 1 1 1 4 Site is designated as Green Belt in LDP with a presumption against its loss to development. Planning status could elongate planning consenting process by up to 2 years. Site is relatively remote from proposed catchment. *Notes Size Ownership of land Anticipated additional cost of developing 8 acres considered the minimum size required for an 800 capacity primary school and necessary community facilities. Sites smaller than this threshold not considered further This is scored based on the speed and ease of delivery of the school. A third party owner will inevitably involve negotiations and costs to purchase (not otherwise accounted for elsewhere) and lead to a longer timescale for delivery. A BAE owned site is considered to be quicker due to their imperative to find a solution to assist future housebuilding but not as quick as a Council owned site. This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. Sites with no existing or committed road access of a suitable nature or with significant earthwork requirements will add significantly to the cost of the development Site analysis/scoring (continued) SITE PLANNING AND SELECTION Definitions Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing Site is large enough to accommodate proposed scale of school capacity Site is less than 1km walking distance from majority of school catchment residents Site is owned by RC, BAE or other. *see notes Site is identified for future development in adopted Local Development Plan This criterion is based on a relatively flat, unencumbered site with good existing or committed road access would represent the lowest cost solution for site development. *see notes Scoring Site Size Active Travel Ownership of land Land use designation Anticipated additional cost of developing PASS = Site is > 8acres in size 3 = majority of catchment <1km walking distance 3 = site is owned by RC 3 = land designated for development 3 = no anticipated additional costs FAIL = Site is < 8acres in size 2 = less than 50% of catchment <1km walking distance 2 = site is owned by BAE 2 = land has no definite status (eg. Unallocated land) 2 = either significant earthworks, new road, additional utility connections required for development site 1 = majority of catchment >1km walking distance 1 = site is owned by other than RC or BAE 1 = site is allocated for open space or green belt 1 = more than one significant additional cost required
Page 76
Active Travel and school access TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL A local priority • Feedback from our Space Planning process and through community representatives has flagged safe travel to and from the proposed new primary school as a priority for parents and carers. • This will be a core element of our planning and will be carefully considered through engagement with parents and carers, as we agree a site for the new primary school and progress its development. • Improvements to active travel will be made at the existing Dargavel Primary School, including improving arrangements for parents and carers at drop-off and pick-up. • In 2023, the council commissioned Stantec to carry out a review of Active Travel Provision at Dargavel Village. This has recommended areas for consideration to improve Active Travel to Dargavel Primary School, and to consider when planning the proposed new primary school. You can find out more from Officers today. Active Travel improvements to consider at Dargavel Primary School • Create an active travel corridor from Barrangary Road along Arrochar Drive and widening footpaths on the proposed section of the Western Loop Road. • Erect wayfinding signs to show the distance from key points on the footpath and cycleway network to the school. Signs should consist of distances in metres and time. • Provide a temporary car park in the council owned vacant site adjacent to the school for parents and carers for drop off and pick up to remove the current on-street parking. • Construct a footway crossover—giving priority to pedestrians, over the access to the temporary car park. • Impose a Traffic Regulation Order (at school times only), replacing police cones, extended along Arrochar Drive. PLEASE NOTE: Active Travel improvements may be a mixture of some/all of the above. The recommendations will be considered in discussion with BAE.
Page 77
Active Travel and school access TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL Active Travel considerations along the Western Loop Road (WLR) • Provide a 4.5m active travel corridor (footway / cycleway) on the school side of the WLR. • Provide a 3.5m wide footway / cycleway along the western side of the WLR. • Link all Active Travel routes (shared footway / cycleways) with footpaths within Central Park. • Each development parcel must provide a safe (and preferably segregated) footway / cycleway link to the WLR of at least 3.5m wide. Active Travel considerations to support proposed new school at proposed site E1 • Position the proposed car park to encourage the least distance travelled by parents / carers and ensure adequate provision for bus parking and drop-off / pick-up. • Provide separate drop-off provision for buses and cars. • Provide footpaths into the school of at least 3.5m width. • Integrate links from development parcels to the Western Loop Road and consider the provision of a controlled crossing point (Toucan) on the Western Loop Road at the point of highest likely demand for pedestrians and cyclists. • Provide splayed entries from the Active Travel corridor to school access footpaths. • Provide School Keep Clear markings along the entire school frontage. • Implement Traffic Regulation Order (at school times only) on the Western Loop Road. • Implement a joint travel plan with the current Dargavel Primary School. PLEASE NOTE: Active Travel improvements may be a mixture of some/all of the above. The recommendations will be considered in discussion with BAE.
Page 78
Active Travel (walking and wheeling) routes with existing consent TRANSPORT AND TRAVEL
Page 79
Information Session – scribe template Date: 8/2/24 Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Bishopton Primary (Online) Council officers present: Gerry Lyons, Wendy McNaught Liz Marshallsay Kellyann Liz Cathryn Henderson Rhona Claire Fiona Johnston Kate Roy Nicola Laura Hill Janis Logue DB General discussion points Gerry outlined the wider engagement approach as part of the statutory consultation process. Realise this has not been as effective in the past and want to do better. Do this in different ways. Shared dates and format of information sessions and public meetings. Giving people opportunity to ask questions, get them answered and recorded. Outlined the statutory consultation process – a relevant proposal needs to be presented. Propose an opening of a new school for 800 children in Dargavel, site selection and review of catchment. We are seeking opinions on these areas. 1 proposal does not mean “a done deal”. Based on views, a report will be published and shared with councillors. Other alternatives can be suggested and put forward for consideration. Site chosen is the one we are most confident it can be built for 2027. Appendix C
Page 80
Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings Specific questions raised EY provision Nursery provision in Bishopton – 73 spaces in council nursery. Has there been any discussions about extending. Interpretation of responses and scale of consultation Location and site don’t impact me personally or children. Risk of delay to the new build and implications for children in Bishopton. How are views being interpreted. Certain voices perhaps dominating positions that are not representative. Geographical opportunities – how wide is the consultation Consultation outcomes 800 new primary school – if people disagree what would be the outcome? Response provided Will discuss this with the early years teams in terms of capacity and requirement. There are a range of different ways to respond and how these will be interpreted. There is an online questionnaire for people to complete which are directly about the proposal which are scaled. This will give us hard indicators and a range of views will be added to this information. Education Scotland are also part of this. There interpretation will also be pulled together into a report which will be presented to members with recommendations. Need a full rounded picture of community view and not just a small number who are particularly active. Encourage people to complete the survey. Anyone can comment on the consultation in Renfrewshire and give an opinion to make it as open ended. Stat consultees will have different engagement processes. We would need to look at the extent of the responses and balance. Concern as representative of the council that beyond Aug 27 numbers of children cannot be met between Bishopton and Dargavel and we would need to look further out and we don’t want to be in this position. However, we need to be led by community on this. It is not an election or referendum. We are gathering views and then can make a decision based on wide range of views.
Page 81
How do you decide to go ahead with proposal – must be a cutoff / threshold If decision is for the proposal not going ahead, the proposal goes back to drawing board. Rashilea has been put forward as being potential solution but this is not clear in proposal. Long term planning Interim positions – interim plans for High School. Where is the longevity in planning. Planning permission for another 300 houses, has this been taken into account There is no definitive score. If people are saying they are not in favour, its more important to understand why and what proposal is feasible. It doesn’t come down to a scoring system. A range of views and opinions are taken and then recommendations are proposed. Not about the biggest number wins. All comes back down to discussions and a final paper which will be presented to politicians. Proposal paper needs to be presented in a particular way – educational benefits are presented on the option and we tend not to go into if it is not successful. Gathering this type of information through the engagement. Figures from Edge Analytics include up to 10-15 years. The proposal we are putting forward will meet the requirement for primary education for the long term. There is a peak that comes and it will fall again as development settles. All houses (4322 houses) have been included in projections not just on current houses. We are doing regular monitoring of actual and projected figures, NHS data about births and number of children of certain ages and early years. So, the Primary planning is a very long term picture which also includes scenarios. Secondary is not an interim position. There is an extension to be built which will take capacity to 2000 and this is permanent. In terms of the impact on children, they will have an outstanding education. Have been a HT of 2000 and to inform conversation, we are getting a range of info from schools of similar size so people get an understanding of benefits and challenges. Understand concerns about figures. About a much wider look about the requirements across the area for the long term. Plans are also adding to community facilities – 2 flood lit pitches which will add to football facilities, Arena for concerts. Plans enhance community facilities. Quite substantial long term planning is in place.
Page 82
Planning contingency re new build 2027 – what is contingency it doesn’t come in on time e.g. pandemics. Will children be sent to Rashilea. Regular updates going forward Projections What data has been used to project capacity for new school Secondary placing requests Secondary – What year will placement requests be stopped. Secondary extension Extension to PMHS – will this go ahead The programme plan is significant and this is being monitored extensively. There is a commitment to delivery and we will keep a close eye on the plan and have a plan B in place. Parent council and groups invited to support what regular updates look like and how often they require them. We need to build trust. We are being conscientious and will engage as fully as we can. Range, nature and size of housing and number of children generated from size of housing has been taken into account by Edge. We know the nature of houses that are being proposed – projections based on pupil yield and denominational / non-demon yield. There is a methodology that Edge Analytics use to produce the projection. Council team has done same exercise and came out the same numbers. Live data is also being taken into account. NHS data is given to Edge to take account in projections As part of the Education Scot Act there is a requirement to plan numbers based on young people in catchment. As we monitor catchment area, we need to deliver this requirement. No specific year for stopping placing requests. As we move towards peak, we will start to look at placing requests being reduced and places being capped to catchment only. The real driver is based on 1st year as this decision is for 6 years. The whole process is run on 1st year cap. The projections include actual and projected from feeder primaries. This is a firm plan and doesn’t require stat consultation. Have committed to come and have more detailed conversation about provision. Might be about adjusting catchments to other areas. PMHS wont get any bigger than circa 2000. If it gets to this point, there is a wider conversation to be had about other schools and solutions.
Page 83
Community facilities Will these be open to all and wont be shelved – MUGA downgraded Roll projection question from Liz – adjusted figures – wasn’t clear on question. Was being promoted by someone else to ask question and lacked clarity. Is there a plan B Bishopton condition Bishopton – lifespan and resources. Secondary Numbers of pupils from Bishopton/Dargavel currently going to Park Mains. Along with projected numbers for each year. Based upon the numbers used by edge Community facilities will be open to all – not just primary children. Regarding teenager facilities and potential implications, this is an interesting conversation for the council. Know impact of having positive teenager facilities. PMHS extension will also have additional facilities. Facilities are fundamental to design of school and are as important as classroom space. There will be 2 4G Pitches and are in plans and wont be easy to pencil through. Building a community facility which is not ancillary Plan B would be about adjusting catchment areas at other end of area of the village and the proposal would be to send other addresses to other schools. There would need to be a stat consultation to do this and might need to increase capacity of other schools. Current Bishopton comes under wider learning estate strategy and this is informed by conditions surveys every 5 year. Work required to maintain the school including an amount of money that needs to be spent. Increased funding to ensure children are fully resource. Conversations with estates team and HT are ongoing. Provide David Kelly with figures david.mcisaac@gmail.com
Page 84
Not enough done to improve Bishopton Primary and has never been rewarded for this and should be high on priority Fair and valid point – and has been noted Any other points / info Gerry will be back to wider community council at a later date. Information Session – scribe template Date: 8/2/24 Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Bishopton Primary (Afternoon) Council officers present: Gerry Lyons Sam Marshallsay General discussion points Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings Specific questions raised Projections Edge Analytics – tried and tested model, scenarios based on standard, 140 and 150. Why are you not using 150 scenario given current P1? Working on slim margins. 2027 wont be met for new build based. Temp modular classroom for whole education journey from Primary – Secondary. Need to build in a safety net regarding figures. If there are 3 years of 150 intake, will this be the model taken forward Response provided A number of roll projections and scenarios were discussed with the parent. We are monitoring actual figures twice per year. We have projections and it essential that we track actuals. We have proposed to analyse data after Census (Sept) and after enrolment (March). This will be the data that defines the next stages and identify red flags. Things are different from last time, projections tell us a lot and live figures are absolutely critical. Looking at 150 model in 2 primary 1s cohorts. New set of figures for the whole estate coming at end of month.
Page 85
When will figures be presented to council? New school timeframe New school wont be built on time based on previous experience Bishopton Primary condition How much longer does Bishopton Primary have in its lifecycle? Extension then new build Why not build an extension first rather than new build? Very difficult to get lets for community spaces. It can be built very quickly Projections BAE convinced Renfrewshire Council to change the build model. Dargavel is exceptional and so the numbers will also be exceptional. Modular units If the modular units are not being used, will they be gone or stay in the playground? Trigger points for additional options What is the latest we will need the extension – 1500+ mark, what is the decision point We have to act when we don’t have capacity. We have things now in place which will help us identify when we need to and this is different to previous. Potential dates to be shared with parent? Project plan in place which illustrates when the new build will be complete. Conditions surveys have been completed. With some investment, it is more than suitable for another 20-30 years. There is no intention of Bishopton Primary not being here in next 20 years. We have looked at different models including an extension first and then new build. Extension will only provide classroom space and not community space. It is not fiscally responsible to do the extension first. We are saying regardless of the projection range we can meet capacity. Numbers do not suggest that we cannot meet capacity. Have a range and live data. Need to look at forward decisions and make it work and have people to work with us. Get answer Will share this information when a plan is place
Page 86
Site selection Consultation document –the doc is biased toward a singular option. Other appraisals were shut down largely due to time. E1 – there cannot be no arguments against in E1. It is blank. Where are the negative points about E1. Access and roads not being built are the negatives that have not been documented. E1 meets all criteria. Public consultation gives people the option to explore other sites however this will delay programme. The statutory guidance states you have to put a proposal on the table. E1 presents no negatives in terms of getting the new school built by Aug 27. If people come back in the consultation that they do not want site E1, we have to take this into account. We have a responsibility as a council to take this into account. Transport consultant has been commissioned to look at all transport issues. Any other points / info See council who have repeatedly failed and refused to listen to community.
Page 87
Information Session – scribe template Date: 8/2/24 Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Bishopton Primary (Morning) Council officers present: Gerry Lyons David Woodrow Danielle Cox General discussion points Parent raised issue of having to move children to Bishopton due to noise issue with Dargavel – children are hearing impaired. Both schools have been very supportive. Feel we need to start afresh regardless of previous issues but the children are a priority. Discussion about ASN and diversity of needs and how to engage with parents / carers. Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings Specific questions raised Community facilities Is this still going to built and not taken over by new builds? Catchment review Catchment review addresses in scope Road safety with new primary Concerns around roads and traffic with new school being built Response provided Plan is still in place to build park. Addresses and catchment are outlined in the proposal. Parent was recommended to respond formally on the catchment address through the formal consultation. Full survey has been completed by external consultant which is picking up issues. Report will be available in due course. The report includes a series of recommendations for the council to deal with the issues. Active travel
Page 88
ASN Will there be an ASN wing in new school. Recommend council to engage with acoustic experts as part of design Transport / seatbelts Community council raised that there was no seatbelts on buses to Park Mains. A bus appeared that had no seatbelts and has continued to arrive at school will be encouraged but pavements are too narrow and so this needs to be addressed. New pavements being built have to be bigger. This is a conversation to be had with BAE. A drop off car park at current Dargavel is also being considered as a recommendation. There will be spaces but there wont be a specific wing. We are aiming for a properly integrated approach. Need to look at planning, facilities, staffing. Lenses will be children with ASN. Space planning team are taking this into account. ASN input is going to be very important and should be an ongoing conversation as school is getting built. Very good point made regarding engaging experts and will look at engaging all experts e.g. audio, visual. Gerry offered to bring parent in as part of the design and consultation. Gerry will pick this up with Transport team. Any other points / info Joe Donal – audiologist. Key contact First Wednesday in March for Community Council – Gerry to attend.
Page 89
Information Session – scribe template Date: 7/2/24, 7pm (online) Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Dargavel Primary School – conversation online Council officers present: Gerry Lyons, Mrs Farrell, Gerry Carlton Kasey Paton Wendy Amy Ferry Cheryl Kremer Yannick Mr Brown Lyle Brown Cheryl Kremer Sarah K General discussion points NA Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings NA Specific questions raised Secondary The impact on the high school is a concern. Any information on how this would be managed would be good Placements / right to remain Response provided The focus of the consultation is on the new primary school site and catchment. Gerry has offered to speak to parents / carers after Easter regarding secondary provision. Pupils who are currently attending Dargavel Primary have the right to remain. Siblings will be given priority for the primary school.
Page 90
Has it been 100% confirmed that pupils can stay at the current school? And siblings can also go to the current school? Transport and secondary provision Logistics and transport of new school. Cant separate secondary discussion from consultation. Transport is an issue due to PMHS Catchments and transport entitlement Catchments – if you are in new catchment area but wish to remain at Dargavel, will school bus still be provided due to distance? Extension to Dargavel and statutory consultation Is a stat consultation required for an extension at Dargavel Accepted this point that transport is an issue. There will be stand at the information session where transport and travel can be addressed. Gerry will respond directly to this question regarding transport. There is no requirement for statutory consultation on the potential extension at Dargavel Primary. This will be fed back to parents. Any other points / info The questions will be responded to via email to parents.
Page 91
Information Session – scribe template Date: 7/2/24 – 9am Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Dargavel Primary School – parent conversation Council officers present: Gerry Lyons 3 parents attended • David Woodrow • Gillian Fyfe • Dawn Millar General discussion points Sessions provide an option for parents / carers to attend a more informal, open ended discussion. Consultation Gerry updated the parents on statutory consultation process. Must have a proposal to consult on as part of this. There are 2 parts; build a new school for 800 children and on an identified site. The second part is about the proposed catchment for the schools. There is a proforma for parents / carers to complete. Rationale for proposal has been based on roll projections and education provision. Confident that the proposals provides us with sufficient space. Council has recognised that there has been error made. Consultancy brought in to support work on projections. This is based on 140 intake and 150 intake and this is where the figures have come from for the new school. Proposal is for 800 however we are aware figures might be bigger and there are proposals to add additional capacity if required. This could be extension, modular units and using capacity in Bishopton. Monitoring figures yearly, particularly live data as this is more important. We will look at numbers at census and enrolment (actual and potential). Plans for new school look great. Recognise the stress that families are going through and want to minimise the stress. Understand that there are concerns about having a proposal in place and appearing as a “done deal” but this is required as part of consultation and need to be open to the possibility of looking at different options, sizes, solutions. August 2027 is our driver and when the new school will be open. This is in line with projections. Parents / carers need to be aware that different options / solutions will impact on timescales.
Page 92
Site Sites have been looked and assessed on criteria (size of site was one of the main criteria). Details of sites are outlined in papers. Options are presented. Traffic / travel Traffic has been raised as an issue. We have been monitoring this. We know this is a concern for community. Active travel should be encouraged but people will continue to use cars. We need to look at congestion. Independent traffic consultant commissioned. They have looked at issue around congestion, access and possible solution. Council will share detail of this in due course. BAE are part of this conversation as their will be responsibility on their part for some of the solution. Mr. Woodrow raised concerns around consultants being used in the area. Historically not a great relationship. Pitches There will be 2 pitches as part of the new Primary school. There will be community facilities in the new school (e.g. theatre). Consultation is about getting feedback from community on these issues. Engagement Part of our approach is community engagement and to improve on this as part of the consultation process so have given as many options for parents / carers to engage and feel listened to. We are learning from mistakes. Want to hear what people think who live in the community. Dates and approaches were shared on info session and public meetings. Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings NA Specific questions raised Parent expressed that they are very happy with school and in particular senior management team. Child has significant ASN and school have been very supportive. Child is very much enjoying the school. Size of current DPS What is the size of current school in square metres compared to new school Response provided Get figure for public meeting in case raised
Page 93
Impact of new catchments and remaining in current school If child is here currently, will they be moved to new school as part of new catchment Size of new Primary School Concerns around proposed size of new school What happens if don’t reach maximum projected figure Secondary school concerns Need to start speaking now about secondary arrangements and what happens as new build communities start popping up. Will this impact on PMHS Children are entitled to stay in their current school but you will have a choice if you stay in the new catchment. Any children who have a sibling will also be prioritised in current school. Some people will be balloting which is not ideal. Internal works to increase capacity as current school. Pinch point is 2027. Project plan in place for build of new school. There are primary schools of similar size but that would be the largest. The size/space of the school is important to ensure that it works for the number of children. Figures going into the new school will be gradual. We have a range of figures provided by Edge Analytics (not adjusted, 140 and 150). It will sit somewhere between the lowest and highest. We need a plan for the highest projection. This consultation is based on the new primary school and catchment and not secondary. Communities will have the opportunity to speak more about this. Council recognises there are concerns around the figures and size of school. Gerry explained his experience of managing large schools and combining this with experiences of other schools of similar size and views of parents / carers. This will be shared and provided in due course. Need to take account of the other 7 learning communities in relation to PMHS. New buildings / communities might not necessarily be linked to PMHS. Need to consider zoning and look at options. The size of PMHS will be capped at 2000. Gerry has committed to speak to Bishopton after Easter to discuss secondary and will give DPS parents the same opportunity.
Page 94
Travel / Transport Transport figures of busing children to Bishopton. Not parental choice to send children to Bishopton and so transport should be provided to those families. Additional cars in the area raised – active travel is not always practical. School crossing patrollers Potential location of these going forward Wider infrastructure and community facilities Wider infrastructure issues raised – no health centre, 1 shop, MUGA gets locked at night. Community groups – not a lot available for children in the area. Learning from current DPS Need to take learning from the design of current Primary. Get costs for public meeting. Transport policy was outlined e.g. over 1 mile you are entitled to transport however not all will use that. Questionnaire will go out to all parents who live 1 mile or less away to understand what transport would be required. Responses will determine school transport requirements. Independent travel consultant has a detailed report and will be considered as part of planning. Range of solutions outlined. Know this is a big issue for community. Can raise with team New school proposals will look at what value it can add to the community in terms of additional facilities. Different kinds of spaces to support groups in the proposed new build. There will be 2 flood-lit pitches. Facility will be high quality and deal with some of these issues. Community is a big driver for design. School staff have been part of the Space Zero sessions. Feedback on open plan design. There are a lot more dedicated classrooms. Less open plan. Some learning plazas. Can share Space Zero presentations. Any other points / info Builders have options on land and this is a concern – impact on green space. Gerry to pick up with Mr. Woodrow PMHS and new secondary school being built – 20 minute rule. Every resource should be within 20 mins. Idea of building a new secondary school actively damages feeder school. It is not an appropriate response for a council but recognise how it would be for individual communities.
Page 95
Information Session – scribe template Date: 7/2/24 – 9am Scribe name: Lauren Johnston Session: Dargavel Primary School – parent conversation Council officers present: Gerry Lyons 2 parents attended • David Woodrow • Gillian General discussion points Sessions provide an option for parents / carers to attend a more informal, open ended discussion. Dates were shared on info session and public meetings. Meeting mainly focused on parent / carer questions. Identified areas which individuals would like covered in public meetings NA Specific questions raised Siblings and placements What is the position on siblings and P1 intake School rolls raised and how many children will be starting in P1. Response provided If there is a sibling in the school, the child will be prioritised. Statutory position outlined including placing request process. Within catchment group first and then siblings. 42 siblings starting this year and other places are balloted, deferments (15) and placing requests (8). Internal works ongoing to increase the current capacity in current DPS
Page 96
Modular Units As roll increases each year – who will be accommodate in cabins. Parent was offered a tour of the modular units. Timeframes on portakabins at Parkmains High School – concern around children always being taught in portakabins e.g. moving from a cabin in Primary and the Secondary. Roll projections / Edge Analytics Is 260 the working assumption for PMHS intake Initial roll projections different from Edge Analytics and rate of build in the area Capacity What is the maximum capacity for current and new school without modular units Cant say what the plan will always be for modular units as it is dependant on class sizes. P1 will mainly be in main building and the structure is set up well for p2-p5. Extension is planned to be ready for 2027 – modular provision wont be required once extension is in place. It is there currently for flexibility. Therefore young people won’t have the experience of always being taught in a cabin. Projected figures for PMHS were provided and S1 intake. This figure was confirmed from the roll projection board paper. Milestones were outlined in terms of when roll projections would be reviewed including census and actuals. There was a Council team who did the initial roll projections. Edge is an expert company working on Dargavel, Bishopton and the whole of Renfrewshire estate to inform wider strategy. The internal team will also compare their figures with Edge figures. The approach will also take account of live data. The data includes 15 years projection so need to review at least twice a year. All calculations are based on houses granted, applied and pending. 4322 houses is the planned amount and Edge have projected based on this figure. Gerry provided written note of max capacities for the parent / carer DPS 1 - 434 (500) with extension – 634 (700) DPS 2 – 800 max Total = 1500
Page 97
New build v extension Why build a new school first. There is an option to extend DPS 1 first and then explore new build options. Bishopton is coming to end of life-span – why not consider a replacement rather than extensions. Pitches Muga pitch and changes to original plans. Can we push for DPS Muga to be a 3G pitch – gives another community asset to be used. Traffic and Travel Road safety a concern – Beat the Street was a positive approach There have been a number of near misses Concern that the new build will increase traffic flow in the area New secondary provision What is the magic number for a new secondary school to be built in the area Including Bishopton and potential for extending Bishopton Expect figures to level out but building to max scenario. These are all options to consider. Based on condition surveys, investment can improve Bishopton Primary and replacement is not a planned option. Plan for new Primary includes 2 3G flood-lit pitches. Parent / carers are welcome to ask the question on the MUGA pitch. Traffic and travel – there is an independent traffic consultant reviewing and solutions will be put in place to improve situation. Issue is wider because the catchment of new school is within walking distance and we are going to do a lot of work to encourage active travel. Will be available to discuss at info session. Consultant is looking at this in terms of the new school as well as BAE as they have a responsibility. Meeting with East Ren / Dundee as there are similar issues with new builds being in close proximity and how this is managed. There is no figure. We need to look at existing capacity and schools in the area before considering a new build. Any other points / info Reviewed land out the back window of the staff room.
Page 98
Appendix D DPS Information Session Evening – 14/2/24 Roll projections • Concern about numbers in the new primary and are they definitely accurate and what happens if it is higher than projected. Health and Safety - Ponds • People concerned that ponds on the walking route aren’t fenced off – what will be done about it? Balloting How will the ballots work in 25/26? Gerry explained. DPS Information Session Evening – 15/2/24 Secondary • Secondary provision and size of school • Concern about 2000 secondary school – how will that work. Catchment • Concerns around splitting up children from their established groups • Can we finalise catchments as early as we can before school opens • Will people get opportunity to move to new and will there be sufficient space to accommodate Site • Site selection – why proposed site was selected and matrix very helpful • Family very positive about particular site Facilities • Will we be able to fit a full size pitch and Muga – Cllr McLaren • Will it be possible for BFC to store equipment • Will there be spaces as the current school doesn’t have this Project delivery • Will it be finished on time • Timelines and project going to plan • Parent with child due to start in 2026 – anxious about future plans, reassured by preferred option and timetable for delivery of preferred option. Roads / travel
Page 99
• For the green parkland area around the development this is not being released until 2034 for access, can this be brought forward as would appear an ideal rural walking/activity area • Have any considerations been given to widening the roads through the village – The roads have been created in such a way as to minimise traffic speeds where possible, increasing the width of lanes encourages increased traffic speeds which is the opposite of the desired effect. • Is there any consideration of a temporary drop off pick up area for the two schools and if so how long could this be in place for and could it be made permanent • Can we have a route map of the new Bus Service (514) – GH WILL GET THIS FROM SPT • Active travel – will the routes through Central Park be lit. • Better drop-off/pick-up at existing school – too busy General • Keen to know that the new school will have more traditional style classrooms – child has hearing loss and keen we have learned from open plan style. Impressed by the space planning and wondered when construction will start. Child in P1 at the moment and sibling arriving 2025. May switch to new school if catchment allowed. • Very positive – what happens when the new school opens in terms of how quickly it will fill, could it be empty for a spell until catchment settles. Will that impact resource or would resource be shared with the existing school. Asked about ICT. Son at existing DP school. Loves it. No active travel issues. Walks every day. Quote – the antagonists will never be happy. • Will there be an acoustician appointed for the design
Page 100
26/2/24 Info session Central park development timescales Supportive of site and with planning timescales. Would prefer new schools as closer to house. Contingency planning and programme being on time Concerns around site location Numbers / roll projections. Right to remain and ballot processes – how is this managed in numbers? Early years – capacity / space / extension Catchments – closer to new building. Management of catchment re Bishopton Community facilities Sustainability of school – make sure it is sustainable Plans for site next to DPS1 which was purchased Very supportive of active travel but pavements are too narrow Supportive of wayfaring Cordite burn potential name change. Couple who live next to site E1 – concern over noise and light from floodlights in day and evening. Were told this would be mitigated during planning application. Expressed view this was dne deal and not much they could do. Preference is site 1, and split the extra 800 pupils over that site and current school site (plus C1). Site location map to be available which links up numbers to site for public (it is on a easel board) • Greenock Road and Rosalind Crescent – check catchment – should they be in Bishopton • Sachelcourt Avenue – missing from new catchment, but not in document • Station Lane – is it not a street, is this a new development? Provisions for teenagers Have we got 10 year census data and will this be part of the projections Use of pitches during school time – lets during school How long will the building last? Will it be more than 20 years.
Page 101
Info session 29/2/24 Site selection • Need to choose a second school site that is further out or further away from school – northern periphery. Slateford Road site was suggested. Further away from existing school and easing catchment. • Community members feel that the reason we have gone with preferred site is due to cost – cheapest option. • Extend school – build on greenfield site and merging with Bishopton. • Wrong place for school – too busy • If the outcome of the consultation is against the proposal, does the site automatically defer to the next highest scored in matrix – point made that the next 2 highest scoring are in relatively same location and not optimal. • Concern over traffic/access to both schools with proposed plans. Feel being rail roaded into a decision to meet 2027 deadline as other options possibly not achievable in same timescale. • Fait accompli - site 9 already selected by Council as purchased it from BAE • Other options should have been offered as part of consultation • Site 9 is cheapest site for Council to choose of all those shown - others could be achieved but more expensive • Schools should not be on same road - going to cause traffic chaos on Arrochar Drive • Why did Council not push BAE to let them consider other sites? • A site to north of Village (West of Slateford Road area – site 22) would be preferable; • Most understanding why BAE suggested sites to west would not work. • Why not use Newton Road pitch site (site 12) for new school and flip existing sports pitches to site 9. Could then plan for Bishopton / Dargavel joint PS catchment over time by redrawing New school • Lots of questions about timeline and delivery programme • In main, will it be built on time and what is the plan if not Facilities • When will drop off area be built at existing DPS • Not enough amenities in Dargavel to reflect Council Tax banding • Health facility is not adding capacity. GPs are just moving between buildings. • Concern over lack of early years provision and out of school care (plus general lack of community facilities). Catchment • Why has catchment been done this way – to merge with Bishopton. • Children are in Bishopton but have a Dargavel catchment. Once new school is open what is their entitlement and how will this affect siblings • Parkmains – similar question. Disruptive start to primary and want to avoid at secondary. • Children not getting into catchment school due number of siblings and right to remain
Page 102
Transport, travel and roads • Will the new school site have off-street car drop off facilities / area? • Will lessons be learnt by Council from existing traffic situation at DPS; • Buses dropping off from PMHS already cause significant issues on Slateford Road and elsewhere • Not realistic to think pupils will walk to primary school • Footpaths and active travel links not sufficient • How long will the construction of the road outside the two schools take • Suggestion that there is an issue with settlement of the proposed road and BAE have told residents it could take up to two years for the roads to complete Other • Council need to start planning for secondary school provision at Dargavel • Will Arrochar Drive be the same road width on section still to be built? • Any thoughts as to how to make the two schools feel connected and to minimise any chance of division with friends/neighbours going to separate schools? • Concerns that its already a done deal and its only going ahead based on costs • Why not close Bishopton and have one big school. • PMHS union rep posed some question. • When is the final consultation report due • Letter drop would be better, difficult to hear about events as child not at a nursery and other parent missed the Carealot update, though it was provided. Not currently received leaflet. Not signed up to newsletter. Saw the poster. • Parent wished his specific views to be captured. David Gunn – school is in wrong location. Serous concerns about traffic because 2 sizable schools are so close together. No concerns have been alleviated after speaking to officers this evening. Location of school has been chosen based on finance and not based on optimal conditions for the long term i.e. urgent school provision required within the next 5 years v a school location that will exist for the long-term (60-70 years). Short term choices not long term. • Impact on St John Bosco
Page 103
Appendix E Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Statutory Public Consultation: Dargavel Primary School Public Meeting 1: Monday 19th February Minutes of Meeting Introduction and Welcome G. Lyons welcomed everyone to the meeting and thanked people for coming. He introduced the officers who were present: Renfrewshire Council Officers present: Gerry Lyons, Interim Head of Education – Chair Janie O’Neil, Director of Children’s Services Louisa Mahon, Head of Marketing and Communications Chris Dalrymple, Head of Facilities and Property Services Gerry Hannah, Head of Climate, Public Protection and Roads Frank Farrell, Programme Manager for Property Services David Love, Chief Planning Officer Introductory Presentation. G. Lyons opened the meeting with a presentation to inform discussions. He identified 2 principles which underpinned the proposals being consulted on: How do we get the best for the children? How will the new school provide facilities which will enhance the community? He emphasised that the proposal is a relevant proposal under the Act and that alternatives to that proposal will be welcomed and fully considered/ He summarised the issues which had emerged from earlier discussions and the information sessions: • Projections, numbers and pupil data • How was the site decision made? • Concerns about traffic and safety • Design of the new building • Planning for children with additional support needs
Page 104
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk • Community facilities – what are they and will they be delivered? • The project plan and will it be delivered on time • Summary of the views of children Discussion/Questions and Answers Q. Can I ask about ASN and numbers of staff? A. There are a range of plans which don’t tie into teacher numbers per se. All the classrooms have client spaces and breakout spaces for children to get time just to themselves, there are spaces like that around the school, particularly important for neurodivergent children, children who struggle to cope with too much noise, you know, any breaks in routine. So, there are lots of breakout spaces, there’s one in every classroom, designed, there are additional ones-, there are support bases for children to work in small groups or to get targeted support based on the needs, so they’re built into the design of the school as well. One of the specific matters we’ve had asked of us is about children who are hearing impaired, so we are going to involve-, do a bit of a consult with an education audiologist, just to get their view on things we should definitely watch out for, things we should definitely be building in to the design of the building. We have a fundamental commitment to inclusion and to meeting the needs of all of our children, and that will inform everything that we’re doing here. And anything that we learn throughout the process, we will feed it back in but some of it is very much about the design of the building and the outdoor spaces are important from that point of view as well. So, lots of different spaces, lots of different kinds of bases for children and we’ll take on board audiology, and visual impairment as well, obviously, it goes without saying, to ensure that it’s the most inclusive school it can be. But it’s very much at the forefront of our thinking in terms of design. Q. And if there are children with higher needs, is there any thought of having extra space for people who can’t be accommodated in a mainstream school, or not in the whole, sort of, big picture of things here? Is that just not going to happen? A. Yes, so fundamentally we are committed to a presumption of mainstreaming, that’s the policy of the government and we work to that policy. And we actually are very much of the view that if we can have our children in mainstream schools, that’s where they can be. However, through our planning process and the Staged Intervention, if there are children for whom that’s not appropriate, we have a range of other options that we can use. Q. What plans are there for teachers anyway in terms of, will they get some training for kids with additional needs? A. I think, challenge in Scottish education around additional support needs, and our teachers are having to cope with an increasing number of children with additional support needs of a wide variety, actually. And certainly, the Morgan Review, which looked at additional support needs-, one of the big things in the Morgan Review was the importance of workforce development, about supporting staff in schools so that they feel equipped to support all children. We have made massive strides in inclusion in Renfrewshire in the last two, three years in terms of building our Staged
Page 105
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Intervention policy, and then wrapping support and teacher training around that. We’re going to continue to do that and we will continue to grow our expertise and our understanding of all of that. To me, that’s right at the heart of our policies, that’s not a Dargavel issue, per se, that’s a Renfrewshire Council issue, and that’s an all children in Scotland issue. Q. How do you feel you’ve got your predictions this time right, compared to the last time that was a complete and utter mess? A. So, there are a lot of aspects of the answer to that question but all of them are equally important. One is, try not to make the same mistake twice, you know, we don’t want to find ourselves in the situation, we know the pain it has caused. You and I had a big chat about that the other night, the pain that was caused to the community by the last exercise and we’ve really looked closely at why that happened. We’ve been working with a consultancy called Edge Analytics and all the projections that we have for the new schools, and for primary provision in the area, have been developed by them using a model that they’ve used across the whole of Britain. So, what that’s giving us, is a range of numbers-, so they have their own model, which took us to 1,131. We then asked them to do the same exercise from a starting point of 140 in primary one and that took us to 1,300. And then we asked them to do that with the basis of 150 at the moment in primary one, and then used their model from that starting point, and that took us to 1,500. This is not a definitive position, that we know the number, we don’t know the number, but we believe that the number will sit somewhere between that 1,100 and that 1,500, but we are putting in plans if it gets to 1,500. These the numbers as they are at the moment, so you’ve got 434 in here, as a capacity. With the modular classrooms at the moment, it’s 595 that you’ve got in the building at the moment. We’ve got 595 children in Dargavel Primary, we’ve got Bishopton Primary at the moment that can accommodate at a maximum 519, it’s not there yet but that’s the maximum that they can have. So, with current provision, we can get to 1,100, which buys us the time to build the new school. August 2027 is a crucial point because at August 2027. When you build the new school, the calculation is done on the basis of a new school of 800 and this school at 434. We could stretch it to 500 but that’s using every space, and using every nook and cranny, so we prefer not to. So, at that point, Bishopton isn’t part of the projections, it’s a separate projection for Bishopton Primary. You then have a situation where between that 800 school and this school, you could potentially accommodate the 1,300. However, if it goes to 1,500 we have the option of extending this school so that we can accommodate 1,500 between the two Dargavel Primary schools. We think that between the two Dargavel Primary schools we have planned we can meet the numbers that are projected but we have plans, and if the plans go beyond 1,500, and we’ve got no indication that they will, then Bishopton Primary still provides additional capacity for us if we need it. So, the difference I think, is two-fold, one is, the projections are more detailed, two is, there’s a plan B, there’s a plan C.
Page 106
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk The other part of this which is really important is projections, inevitably the longer time goes on, become less reliable. You’ll know that, so the other part of this is that we are also monitoring the live data, so we’re monitoring the number of children in the schools every year and we’re going to do that, we think twice a year, there’s still a bit of discussion around that. But it feels to me that the right way of doing that is after census, so we take a census of all schools in Scotland in September, and that tells us how many children are actually in a building, it also tells us how many staff are in the building. We then have the enrolment process, which happens between January and March, depending on the sector, and we will take the figures again, and that will tell us who looks as though they’re coming, and we will measure that against the projections. That will allow us to make decisions if we think it’s starting to look more than we thought, or indeed less than we thought, so we think we’ve covered much more. Q. You’re saying that the total numbers are 1,500 roughly, is that inclusive of all the children going to Bishopton Primary and not just the two primary schools within Dargavel site? Or is that inclusive of all children? A. That’s the Dargavel children because that’s what we have to accommodate with the building of the new school. Q. What are the current combined school rolls for Bishopton and Dargavel at the moment, and what’s the current capacity for the two schools? A. At the moment, you’ve got 595 in here, and 450-ish in Bishopton. Q. Sorry, is that the occupancy? A. That’s the occupancy, we committed to Bishopton Primary that we wouldn’t take them above 519 and we’ve got the 595 here. We can extend that a bit, via, if we get the work done on the acoustics in here, we could potentially add in another modular classroom which would give us another 25. Q. You don’t anticipate within the next three and a half years that the existing capacity is going to get breached? A. No, 2027 is the time, if we don’t have the new build up by 2027, we’ve got an issue because the statutory requirement on us is, that we meet the needs of all catchment children. And that means, they either go into their catchment school, which is where we will end up, but if they don’t get into their catchment school they get offered the nearest available school. Up until August 2027, that is Bishopton Primary, beyond August 2027 you go beyond Bishopton Primary, you start to bring in Rashielea Primary as another one. So, we don’t want to get to that stage, that’s why August 2027 is so important Q. How confident are you about the speed of housebuilding and occupancy? A. All our projections are based on the final figure which is 4,322 houses in this area and the projection model used by Edge Analytics, which has now been mirrored by our own team, takes in number of houses, number of children per house on a formula, NHS data, migration into the local area.
Page 107
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk the other thing to think about is just the rate of housebuilding, so ultimately that will be continually monitored to ensure that we are having a live data account of the occupancy of these units that are coming forward. The market might change, if the economy changes, you know, the housebuilding might slow down, it might speed up, so it’s about making sure that we continually monitor that on a live basis to ensure that we know what’s coming forward and what’s being occupied. Q. My view of that is, that’s unacceptable, we can’t have kids from Dargavel coming here, coming to the new school and actually if they don’t get in to either of those schools, they go to Bishopton. Or actually, if they don’t even get into that school they go to Rashielea, like, we can’t even get to that stage, that shouldn’t even be on the radar. A. The radar doesn’t go much beyond 1,500 because that’s a what a projection has given us as the very, very maximum. Edge Analytics and ourselves believe that the number will be less than that, we are pretty confident about that but what we can’t do, What we cannot do is take a position of, in any eventuality, us not knowing what to do. So, all I’m trying to show you there is not what we think will happen-, if you say to me, what do I think will happen, I think Dargavel village will be served by two primary schools, and those two primary schools will accommodate all the children that live in the village, I believe that’s what will happen. That’s what the basis of this proposal is but it’s incumbent on us to learn from the last experience, so that we’re saying, ‘So, if not, and it gets to that, do we have a plan?’ ‘Yes, we do.’ ‘And if, despite everything telling us it’s not the case, it goes beyond that, what then?’ So, all I’m trying to do is give you comfort, which is, we’re going into every single possible scenario but we’re planning on the scenario which we think is the one that will come through, which is the two primary schools meet the requirement. Q. You’re talking about roll projections, does that take into account the fact that, potentially in the future, there could be more than 4,322 houses built? I don’t know. A. Yes, so there are 4,200 houses consented as we currently sit, you know, ultimately the developer can’t exceed that without coming to the Council for further planning consent. So, if they come to the Council for further planning consent, at that time that’s when the consideration is then, you know, ‘Do you give them permission, and if you were to give them permission, what is the impact?’ So, ultimately, we’d be going to our education colleagues to say, you know, ‘Here’s another proposal, how do we deal with that? Is there capacity? What is the mitigation? Should that be, you know, even considered? That further consent is informed by a conversation about education provision. Q. Is that the BAE’s consent? A. Yes, that’s the BAE’s consent, so that’s the planning consent and that’s what they have in their overall masterplan. Discussion followed about numbers and how they might be calculated or responded to: Q. Because there are 2,000 houses still to be built, which is equivalent to 500 kids at the current rate. Has that been built in?
Page 108
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk A Gerry Lyons: Yes, so the current rate is about 800, another 500 will take you up closer to that 1,300 that we think is the optimum figure. Yes? Q. Jack Clark: Yes, so, I’ve got a couple of points I want to make. The first one, just following on from the point about, sort of, roll numbers and things like that is, that you said that it will be between 1,100 and 1,500, so you’re projecting for it. But that’s still quite a big disparity in terms of pupil numbers, I mean, if I take the primary school that I went to, you know, 400 pupils is four times the size of the whole school that I went to. So, it’s a big number of kids, and I was just wondering what provisions were in place in terms of individual class sizes, to try and keep them around, sort of, 30 and under (Timecode: 00:40:00) pupils, and about teacher numbers and things? What plans are in place and what were you thinking of doing with that? The other thing, just around a similar, sort of, theme is, you’ve got this methodology for projecting how many kids are going to be in the school and that, and you’ll take your high, low, median. Is there enough confidence for that for going into other schools? I realise it’s a bit tangential but about projecting that and if there are schools in future going to be built, or in new estates like where I stay, in Paisley, we’ve got the Hawkhead village that’s just been built and-, A. Gerry Lyons: It’s actually not tangential, I’ll take that point first if that’s okay, because we are now in a place, in Renfrewshire Council, where we’re looking at the whole learning estate. In one of the exercises which is just about to be shared with us, Edge Analytics have done projected rolls for all of the schools in Renfrewshire Council, so that we can see, you know, how it all fits together, what the numbers are coming forward, and that will inform planning, which Janie will be very much leading, in terms of the learning estate, with all the colleagues round this table. So, that’s not just primary, that’s primary and secondary to inform learning estate planning, so that’s not a tangential point. Q. Is, or will that data be available? A. Yes, absolutely, to go back to your first point, class sizes have statutory limits associated with them. So, primary one is a maximum of 25, primary two to four is 30, and primary five to seven is a maximum of 33. Again, we would be at the very top end of the occupation of the school if we were getting to numbers like 33, but those are the, kind of, statutory maximums. The schools will not open full, so they won’t be at those maximums but again, they will be decisions made by the Head Teachers of the school, who, for example, might decide to make a class where the children are blending and working really well together a bit bigger, to enable them to make a class where the children have a few more challenges a bit smaller. We leave that with the Head Teacher of the school to decide. Q. Regarding the numbers, and just jumping back to Bishopton and Dargavel, well Bishopton, because it’s one village ultimately, Dargavel’s just a different area. Can I recommend that you don’t just look at Dargavel’s side in isolation and that you do look at Bishopton? The demographic of Bishopton has changed dramatically, Mr Woodrow, you’ve been here a long time, I have as well, I grew up in this village, when I was a child this was classed an old person’s village. It is not that anymore, it is young, it is a young person’s village. It needs to be taken into consideration. I think if you’re only considering Dargavel and not looking at Bishopton, and you think
Page 109
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk there’s this gap in capacity that can be filled by Bishopton, we could end up in the same situation again. A. Yes, we have projections for Bishopton as part of the wider learning estate planning, so we’ve got that, so you don’t need to think that we’re ignoring Bishopton, we’re not. The only point I’m making about Bishopton is the fact that it’s involved at the moment, and when does it stop being involved? 43 will be the number in primary one in Bishopton once the new Dargavel is built. It has capacity for double that without the school even needing to be have any consideration of extending. It’s not out of the question to extend it, as well, so we will keep Bishopton under review as part of the wider learning estate, I suspect that won’t be my issue but it will certainly be Janie’s. But it’s really helpful for us to hear that because you understand this community better than I do, you understand it much better than I do. Q. What’s the current primary 1 in Bishopton Primary? How is it affected by Dargavel? A. 100. It will be 43 once the new school is built. However there will be capacity within the school in the event the numbers grow in future years. Discussion: There was then an expanded discussion about facilities and activities for teenagers in Bishopton. Concern was expressed about this leading to young people vandalising the area and residents stressed they would like that taken into account. This led into a discussion about the numbers for Park Mains High School and the possibility that the planned extension would not be big enough and the same problem would arise as the original problem with the primary provision. As this is not in the scope of the consultation, it in not outlined in detail in the minutes. However, the discussion is contained in the accompanying transcription of the meeting. Q. I know obviously there’s a lot more data analytics going on there but is there now more consideration to put in more listening to people that are actually on the ground doing it, rather than just sitting and going, ‘The computer says I fit 12,000 people, that’s it’? A. When you’re looking over the independent reports and the feedback you’ve had from independent organisations, then you sit and talk to David, you talk to parents, you talk to the Parent Councils, the recurring message is, ‘We told you things and you didn’t pay attention. We told you things and you discounted them. We told you things and you put them in the bin.’ We do not want anyone saying that about Renfrewshire Council, so we’re in a position just now where we’ve got this proposal on the primary school, but it’s much bigger than that. It’s the start of a more, I think, exciting approach to community engagement, a more engaged Council, I believe, a more engaged group of services, because all these guys round here have all been very clear, ‘We want to know about this, we want to get it right.’ So, we will finish the consultation and it will be what it will be, it will not be the end of the process, we will keep coming back to you with our progress, we’ll keep coming back to you with what we think the numbers are looking like, and we will invite you
Page 110
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk openly to tell us what you’re finding, what you’re thinking. And all of that will be meshed together so that we continue to plan effectively to meet the needs both of the children, the families and the community. But we can’t do that ourselves and we don’t want to do it ourselves. We believe that the figures we’re getting are right but if someone comes along and says, ‘I’m telling you, there’s a lot more kids appearing in that village than we thought,’ we’re not going to say, ‘No luck, the computer said it’s not that.’ We won’t do that. Q. Yes, tell me about the design process and how the community will be kept informed of how the design is developing? A. I could take that, we discussed this last Wednesday. The design process follows a rigid process itself, it goes through-, they’re called RIBA stages, architectural stages. Right now, we are at the point where we’re trying to appoint a consultant. So, consultant architects, consultant engineers, we’re appointing them to try and get ahead of the game, obviously, so that when we do have the consultation process complete we are ready to start on a design. So, right now there isn’t a design as such because we don’t have a site. The design process as you see from the timeline up there, we’re saying that we will be on site for, I think, June, approximately 2025 and we’ll be finished by August ’27. Q. So, that’s construction commencing June ’25? And that’s based on the proposed plot that you have just now and not a different plot, I assume? A. That’s based on something as a starting point, yes. July ’25, sorry. Then July ’25 to August ’27 is the construction but there are design processes before that Q. How will the community be kept informed of what is planned to be built or proposed to be built? A. It would be similar to this I would imagine, it would be something we discuss with the client, which is education, Children’s Services, they would come to us and say, ‘We want to have, maybe, presentation sessions with boards, this is what we’re proposing.’ It’s the same answer to that last point that you made, how do we feed back to the community? So, Community Council, separate forums, I think we need to have a conversation about what the right forums are, where you want to hear from us, where you want presence from us. Those types of forums we can absolutely bring back design as it progresses. One of the questions that we asked about in terms of what we’re looking for from an architect, ‘Is an architect just prepared to come along and talk to the community about their proposals, the designs and how it’s all going to fit together?’ So, we will keep that process going, so that you know when we move from what effectively is concept planning at the moment, to more detailed design planning and what that looks like, and that’s something that we can just get feedback from you on the best way to share that. Would that be a, kind of, open evening or, you know, actual-, I’ve
Page 111
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk not got the answer to that but I’m happy for you to give me the answer and I’ll make sure that all my colleagues here know about it, for you. Designers we look at, obviously, one of the questions we put to them, they have to experience in building-, obviously not building schools but engagement process, and understand the engagement process, the consultation process, and that was quite high on the questions we set. So, we don’t propose to bring every single consultant to meetings, that’s not going to help, but the lead consultant, the designer, is who is probably most appropriate and the best one to actually discuss any specific questions, queries. They would bring these, sort of, designs to these sessions. Discussion: How can we do things differently to get more people engaged in the consultation process? Details in the transcription pages 26-29 Q. Is there the possibility of the MUGA being upgraded to a 4G pitch? A. Honest answer, I don’t know, we can have that conversation but I don’t know. There then followed concluding discussions about the importance of on going community engagement as the project progresses. Peter McColl stressed the importance of people expressing views through the formal consultation process as that was the only way to be sure that views will be heard. The meeting was then brought to a conclusion with thanks to everyone for attending and taking part in the discussions so openly and respectfully. G. Lyons
Page 112
Appendix E Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Statutory Public Consultation: Dargavel Primary School Public Meeting 2: Tuesday 5th March 2024 Minutes of Meeting Renfrewshire Council Officers present: Gerry Lyons, Interim Head of Education – Chair Janie O’Neill, Director of Children’s Services Louisa Mahon, Head of Marketing and Communications Chris Dalrymple, Head of Facilities and Property Services Gerry Hannah, Head of Climate, Public Protection and Roads Frank Farrell, Programme Manager for Property Services Alasdair Morrison, Head of Planning Introductory Presentation. G. Lyons opened the meeting with a presentation. Welcome to all of you and thank you for coming, it’s great to see so many of you here tonight. If I can just introduce myself, for those of you that I’ve not met before. I’m Gerry Lyons, I am interim Head of Service for Children’s Services in Renfrewshire Council and the lead for this statutory consultation, I will be leading and chairing proceedings tonight. I have a range of colleagues with me who you’ll meet as the night goes on, I’m not going to introduce them all just now but they’ll introduce themselves as we go through the proceedings tonight. We also have representation from Education Scotland who is here purely as an observer and will not become involved in any conversations, that’s not Education Scotland’s role, it’s to observe and to evaluate the process, and to give feedback, so that’s the way that will work from the Education Scotland perspective. I’m going to open tonight with a very short presentation because tonight is really not about you listening to me or to anyone else but much more about you getting a chance to-, for us to listen to you and we know that’s not been something that has been done in the past particularly successfully, but we are very determined to rectify that and to take a listening position on all of the issues, as far as we possibly can. So, let me just, kind of, introduce then-, and although this is a proposal which is very practical, the building of a new school in a particular place and a series of catchment areas, I think it’s worth taking some time to reflect on what sits underneath that, and to hold on to what sits underneath it, which are these two things here. That firstly, we want to deliver the highest possible
Page 113
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk quality education provision for all of the children, and that’s both now and in the future, there is a pressing element to this and I’m sure we’ll talk a bit about the pressing element of it. So, we have to deliver for the children now, but we also have to deliver a facility that, in whatever number of years from now, is still worthy of those children, is still giving them an environment where they can learn and achieve their potential, so those are the two joint commitments to the children. The second principle is one which is really important to us and has been really important to loads of people we’ve spoken to, which is that community commitment, the facilities for community use which enhance the community of Bishopton and Dargavel. Already we’ve had lots of feedback from people saying that that’s something that’s really missing at the moment, that’s a real miss, and also that we set out on that road before and never really delivered that. One of the important principles is that both of these things are fundamental to the proposal. One is not ancillary to the other, they are absolutely fundamental and therefore our intent is to deliver on both of them. So, tonight is, just for the context, a public meeting, it sits within the statutory consultation guidelines that are set out by the government, and we have a set of outcomes linked to those principles that we want to deliver tonight. The first one is that transparency, and again, that’s been a criticism in the past, that we haven’t been as transparent as we could be, and tonight we are going to-, and throughout this process actually, it’s been a real guiding light for all of the officers involved, that we are transparent about facts and if we don’t have facts, about going and getting those facts, and bringing them back. About the constraints that exist and that we have to accommodate within this process and the challenges that we face, and some of those are challenges which impact very directly on you, if not all of them. So, we have to be open about that and help give a genuine picture of the situation where we are. We want to listen and we want to understand the lived experience, which for a lot of you has been very upsetting, has been challenging, and has made you very angry, and we get that, but we want to understand it better. We want to hear the widest range of views and part of this whole approach has been to get as many different ways that people could contribute as we could, so that we could hear from as many people as possible, and all the views that exist, both within the community and across the whole of Bishopton. What are the concerns and what are the thoughts? Again, so that we can inform what we’re doing by those. A statutory consultation has to start with a proposal, and we do have a proposal, but it is open to alternatives and to the possibility that there’s a better way of doing this, and we need to hear what those alternatives might be, so that we can give them consideration prior to any decision making. We want tonight to be a positive experience for everyone and I’m aware, and I’ve had it told to me in other sessions that we’ve had, that previous public meetings weren’t necessarily positive for people. We want tonight, whatever happens and whatever you feel about the outcomes, that at least you feel it’s been a positive two hours of your life, and that it was worth coming along. So, we want that for everyone tonight. So, the way we’re going to organise the session, we’ve got this quick introduction from myself, we’re then going to split into two groups. The first group will go next door and they will work with Gerry and Alistair Morrison to talk about the site, transport, and all issues associated with that. Those people are the people that are responsible for delivering on those issues, so they’re the best people to talk to. The second group will stay here with myself and we will talk about catchment areas, roll projections, admissions, all the, I suppose, education stuff. You’re not tied to any of those, you can talk about anything you want but those are the, kind of, focus. We’ll do that for about 35 minutes,
Page 114
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk give or take, we’ll then have a quick comfort break and I’ll go next door, and Alistair and the team will come in here, and we’ll have the second workshop where we swap round the areas of focus. We’ll then come together about 8:40 for any final questions or any final comment, or any issues that you wanted to hear about that you’ve not had the chance to hear about. The whole design of the evening is about giving as wide a range of information and fitting in with those outcomes that we identified. The ethos of the meeting and how we want to conduct the meeting. We want it to be open, so if you’ve got something to say, it’s right and proper that you say it, I don’t want anyone to feel that they can’t say whatever they want to say, and that there’s an honest exchange of views. You will probably disagree with each other, that’s absolutely fine, but that is open and honest, and well intentioned, and holding on, I think, to those principles about getting it right for the children and for the community. We want that done with that backdrop of mutual respect and a civil way of going about our business, and that as chair, is something that I have responsibility for, to chair in a way that makes sure that that’s intact, that we hold on to finding solutions and looking forward, but not in a way that disregards what happened in the past. What happened in the past is absolutely relevant and still live for so many people, but we want to try to, kind of, give credit to that, recognise that, but also say, ‘Right, so what do we do differently moving forward?’ Lastly, that if you ask something we don’t have the answer to, we are going to tell you we don’t have the answer, but we are going to commit to finding the answer and bringing it back to you, so that there’s not a, kind of, waffling our way round things we don’t quite get. We are going to be honest and say, ‘I don’t know the answer to that but we will commit to getting it to you, and when we’ll get it to you.’ So, that is really how we want to organise the evening and hopefully run the evening, I hope you’re all comfortable with that. Let me give you a wee sense of what we’ve heard already and that may be something you’ve heard already, if you’ve been at information sessions, so apologies for that, but it maybe sets a scene for some of the discussions we’re going to have. One of the biggest conversations we’ve been having is about the numbers, of course that was one of the biggest issues the last time, if the not the biggest issue. So, ‘Are the numbers accurate? How are we making decisions? Are we thinking through all the possibilities?’ We’ve had quite a lot of chat about that. The site decision, there is a site matrix, we have gone through a scoring process, Alistair will talk to that and answer any questions about the site matrix. The decision-making process is outlined in the booklet that you can take away with you, and the timing. Consistently what I’ve said, and I’ll say it again this evening, is that August 2027 is a key date for this. We have primary one parents who are having the location of their child’s education, and primary one education, decided by a ballot. We want that situation to exist for as little time as possible, it’s on us that it does exist, so there’s no hiding from that fact, but it’s not where we want to be. I’m very aware of how important that is to all of you, and you want certainty. August 2027 is a key date for us because until then, we can manage the primary one numbers between Dargavel and Bishopton. By August 2027 we can no longer do that and the schools would then extend out to the next nearest school. We want to avoid that scenario at all costs, so timing has been one of the things that is driving our position on all of this. We know there have been huge traffic and safety concerns, we know there continue to be huge traffic and safety concerns. There was a conversation the other night about a temporary drop-off zone in this school, and you’ll get more detail of that this evening
Page 115
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk from Alistair and from Frank. I had my first meeting today about the scheduling of that temporary drop-off zone and when it will be ready, and when it will be available for use. It was a very early discussion and Frank and Alistair are far better positioned to talk about that than me. We can talk about the design of the building, we have tried to learn from the experience of this building, and the experience of people who work here and who learn here, and they’ve been involved in our conversations about the new building. We’ve heard so much about community facilities, you know, the MUGA that’s in this school, which was never what people thought they were getting, about the importance of a sports pitch, sports facilities, those facilities that allow people to have clubs and have societies, and all of that kind of stuff, so we know how important that is. Questions and Answers The meeting was organised into 2 workshops led by different members of the Renfrewshire Council Team. Workshop 1 Group 1- Pupil Projections; Project Plan Workshop 2 Group 1 – Choice of Site, Traffic and Transport Issues The 2 workshops are minuted separately.
Page 116
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Workshop 1 Group 1 This workshop was led by Gerry Lyons Interim Head of Education; Chris Dalrymple Head of Facilities and Property Q. As I mentioned in the notes that I sent to you, at this stage we’ve had Space Zero, we’ve had all the consultations and presentations, at this point in time it’s words and objectives and what have you. To make a decision, in my mind, on things like basic designs and drawings should be so that people can look at that detail. Not just a whole load of words, and there have been a lot of words so far. You mentioned there that there’s a decision going to be made towards the end of March. A. The consultation process finishes at the end of March, the actual decision in terms of starting the process will be made on 23rd May. Q: Yes, but what is that decision going to be? A The decision will be that the board approves the building of a new school, what site it should be on, and that the catchment areas are whatever they are at the end of the consultation. So, that will be the decision. That starts a process that, you know, Frank and colleagues will lead around those design issues that you talk about, and that will be an important part of the process because that’s when you start to see, ‘What’s this thing going to look like?’ You’re right, that’s vitally important and we want the community to be able to influence that as much as possible, but that’s the, kind of, end of a statutory process that says, to a date-, it should be six weeks, ours has lasted about eight weeks. Then a final report, then a report from Education Scotland, which they take about three weeks of work to do, and following their report, there are then three weeks for us to consider what they come back to us with. I’m looking at my colleague over there just to see that I’m saying that properly. Then we put that to the board, the board decision is the start of a process, not the end of a process, if that makes sense. Q. From the green light going ahead to this school opening, what was that time frame? You guys don’t know the basics? A. I can give you an idea of some of the issues with the timeline for this, this was slightly different because it wasn’t built by Renfrewshire Council, it was through BAE, and they appointed their own contractors, their own design team. It was through part of the COVID period, so that timeline that you see, it took quite a bit of time to open. It shouldn’t impact on this new school because we shouldn’t have, obviously, a pandemic. So, it’s slightly different, this is obviously 400, 440, we’re going to build an 800 school, it’s a bigger (talking over each other) entirely. Q. Well, give us an estimate of a school that you’ve built of the same size without COVID. 800, well, we’re looking at two years’ construction, that’s for the new school. So, that’s construction, what about the full design phase and the ordering of materials etc?
Page 117
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk So, if it’s two years’ construction, how long for design and material order? A It’s basically when we get the consultation approved, we get the go ahead to basically build on whatever site it is that you want, presumably. That date which we’ll probably say May, when is the consultation approval? So, May 24th is the decision, the technical design conclusion will take place from July to December 2024. You’ve then got planning application, am I right in saying that takes about 20 weeks? Q. Not a lot of room for error in there, is there? Tight, I don’t think it’s achievable. Q: If I could just drill into that a bit too, I think. So, looking at the programme that’s in the (inaudible), a couple of things jump out to me, I’m just curious as to the logic behind it. So, starting with the programme, we’re looking at March now, so detailed design will be now, architects appointed this month as well, why are you putting detailed planning in at March ’25? A. Because we don’t have enough important planning information to go on, we don’t think we have enough detail. Q: But your engineers, main contractors, your feedback from technical design, if they’re all dealt with before that, it’s a very unusual move. A: I would qualify that by saying this is indicative timing, if we can get the consultants appointed earlier, the planning process might commence earlier. Q. It strikes me that there’s a strategy there, in the public domain, which planning has to be, that you give us three months as a community to comment against that planning application. If it doesn’t go ahead at the eleventh hour it’s all the community’s fault because August ’27 is a key date, do you understand? A. It’s not meant to come across like that, that was never the intention, I’m sorry you read it that way, that’s not the case at all. A: I think there’s an important element, just on one of the things you said, that I want to come back to. We do not have any intention in operating in a way that says that anything that doesn’t go as we wish it to go would be the community’s fault. That’s not what we’re trying to do here, if the community tell us that there’s something better and something they would prefer, we’re going to respect that. If it doesn’t fit in with the timeline that we’d hope for, then fine, but that won’t be about fault, that will be about saying, ‘Full transparency, full recognition of what people are saying.’ If you say to me, ‘August 2027, Gerry, is really important to you but it’s not as important to this community, we’d rather stretch it out to August 2030,’ then I have got to take cognizance of that, and I would not be saying for one second, ‘Well, if it’s not dealt with by August 2027, that’s your fault.’ Because that’s not the way we want to go forward. So, I know the point you’re making, I just want to pick up that wee issue about fault.
Page 118
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q. No, it’s fine and it’s a valid point for the room, my point isn’t about blame, it’s that the process doesn’t seem right, it doesn’t follow any project I’ve ever seen. Detailed planning is something we try and tick the box off early, to make sure you’ve got your consultants, your community, your engagement, your public-, you’d have the look, the feel, the size, the quantum, you’d have all those things done by technical design. Second to that, there are two years for the design, sorry not design, the delivery, only delivery of the project, for the school. A school that size averages about 78 to 82 weeks. There are about six months of a difference there between the two years and the eighteen months. If you had a rejig of the programme, you’d have a lot more time there, I think, to look at site selection, community engagement and the benefit of what we want as a community, rather than what feels a little like racing to a programme that looks very busy. Key points, we’ve got to get to the solution that works because I do agree, August ’27 is a very important date. I do not want to see any child failed in the education element of this community but it just feels really quick to race through this, given that I was here a year ago when we were talking about site selection, and we’re still talking about trying to get this work the best route possible. So, I’m not pointing fingers, I’m asking simple questions as to, Is this the right programme? I don’t believe it is but there’s enough time there still to look at it, change it, and see, ‘What do we want? What can we bring and what can we contribute?’ A. If I can just intrude, so my name’s Chris Dalrymple, I’m the Head of Facilities and Property Services, so Frank and I will work closely together I think as Gerry’s alluded to, and Frank has said, see if we can pull things forward, we absolutely will. We were asked to look at an indicative timescale to allow us to work through the programme, some of the comments you’ve said there are very fair. I’d like to discuss them in a wee bit more detail, I’m sure Frank would as well, as the Programme Manager for the technical unit but we want to work with the community and we really want to give as much time, in case we encounter something that we aren’t expecting, you sound like you’re in the game as well, you know what you’re talking about. We will encounter some problems, we want to give ourselves some scope so that that key date is being met, but I’d like Frank and I to discuss that a wee bit more with you as part of this consultation This is indicative, this is the indicative timescale we’ve got to meet an August ’27 date. So, yes, some of these dates might move around, you know what it’s like. We’re not going to micromanage every single activity here but the end date is August ’27 that we’ve been aiming for. So, planning application ’25, it might be earlier than that, it depends on what happens to technical design, what happens to the consultation with, obviously, the residents, the community, also with education. Q. One of the things that was raised by the community was the fact that the land that’s currently being used, or potentially going to be used, is the old ROF site. It needs remediated, it needs cleaned up. If we’d gone for a clean site, which there are quite a number of around the perimeter of the site, albeit yes, they are in green belt or whatever, but I think if there’s a will, there’s a way and that would be one way of taking things forward
Page 119
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk with a bit more confidence. Because at the moment, you don’t know what you’re going to find under that ground, it could be ammonium perchlorate it could be nitrocellulose, it could be whatever because that is an old site, it’s part of the old development. We flagged this up easily last year some time but they’ve gone, ‘No,’ because of the complexities of the relationship with BAE, this was a way ahead quickly that Renfrewshire Council could get a site. A. Essentially just that BAE have remediating that site already, they’ve started to remediate it already, and they were doing that last year as well, that site and various other sites. So, the whole point is that they cleanse that site down to a standard level, be it 450 or 750 below the base, and they’re obviously going to clean that of what materials they find in there, hotspots etc. So, it should be clean if that’s the site we eventually choose, that’s what we hope. Q. Going back to the point on duration, the architect appointment is the end of this month? Frank Farrell: Yes. Q What do you base the architect appointment on? On ability or whatever? A. Well, there’s a competitive tender process that’s going on through Hub West. We’ve engaged with Hub West and I don’t know if anybody’s aware what Hub West is, it’s an organisation that authorities can use for a straight supply chain that they have available for consultants and contractors. So, they engage with the market for architects, engineers, contractors and they have a team ready to, basically, start once we agree what site it is, they can start on the design. So, they haven’t designed anything because we don’t know where we’re going to be putting it yet, so it’s really just to get a head start on the design process itself. Q. Are they looking at different architects at the moment? A. That process is being undertaken by Hub West, the same with engineers. Q. They then go into detailed design March to June, I mean, that’s a tight schedule. A. That’s detailed design commencing, then we’re going to appoint an engineer, mechanical engineer as well. They will feed in to the existing design for the architect, the architect starts first, there are various ways around it but this one’s going to feed in with the architect. So, it is tight but that doesn’t actually complete until December ’24, the technical design, there are various stages it goes through, and detailed design commences then. Q. That’s the commencing date? A. Yes, so there’s a nine-month, kind of, designing period. Q. The amount of detail that you have around the planning. You say, you want the community to be involved in the decision if there’s a better way to do something, it’s all about the children, it’s all about community investment, and you’ve just mentioned there that you’re not going to micromanage this. Having a community that has households that are full of
Page 120
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk anxiety and stress over where their children are going, the discussion around primary ones having to be ferried out of the village to start a school career away from their nursery mates, their children that they socialise with in the village, that is not good for the community. So, the August ’27 date is really non-negotiable and yes, it’s very good to have the community’s input into it but do you not think you really need to take the bull by the horns a little bit here and actually put some guidance out there of what can and cannot be moved? A. Yes, I think the one of the challenges of that point is that we are very much-, not constrained, that’s not the right way of saying it, but we have to finish a period of statutory consultation. Until we finish that period of statutory consultation we can’t give, and move forward with, precise details about anything because it would be inappropriate to do so. So, while I understand what you’re saying and I understand the anxiety, nevertheless, this process is governed by a set of guidelines that are not ours and are non-negotiable. Q. That’s the standing situation but as a number of people have said, we’re talking about the same things we were talking about a year ago. So, in that timeframe you could have set out a number of things that are within the art of the possible to do, and not to do, which gives the community time to comment on that. You’ve had comment upon comment, so now we’re moving closer to that deadline of August ’27, it’s quite clearly not about the children because if it was then you would be doing more to tighten those timeframes and using things that, it’s just really disappointing just now to be at this point and you still can’t tie down a plan. A. I understand why you’re saying that, what I’m saying to you is that the team have got an indicative timeline. We will engage with you as much as we possibly can once this, we’ve done so during this process, we will continue to do so after this process, and throughout the whole process, to give as much comfort as we can around the progress that’s being made and the decisions that are being made. Inevitably, we are in a particular process at the moment and we can’t do too much until that’s finished. That’s outwith our gift, I understand your concern about it. Q. What’s the remit of the design team? Is it to design the school in isolation or is it to design the school within the masterplan? Second question, is the school going to be passive house or net zero? The Renfrewshire Council net zero policy is to be by 2030, which, this school will be finished by ’27, or sorry, started by ’27. It falls within that strategy, are we taking cognizance of that so that the school is operationally cheap to run, helping the burden on the Council? So, the first and the second part, if you don’t mind. A. Our remit within property services is to build the school, design the school but obviously we’ve got to do that in conjunction with the site itself. We obviously liaise with BAE, we’ve been doing that with this school as well. So, yes, we will be building the school, not in isolation, even though it is a standalone project for us, we’ll have to liaise with BAE, essentially, because of the access routes, active travel, various other things. Basically, it’s both, we have to design a school for our client and obviously the community, but we still have to link up with BAE. The brief to Hub West is to look for passive house certified, if we can achieve that, net zero, we can (inaudible) standards because it sounds as if you probably know the building regs
Page 121
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk have become far more stringent in the last couple of months, that comes in in April. So, we will be building to the new standards and we will be looking for passive house, possibly certified building, but certainly net zero aspirations contained within. Q. To the first one, the design and masterplan, which is a good thing, looking at the current school and the situation for traffic, it’s not the best for buses. There’s no design in the masterplan for lay-bys, for parking areas, for example, so when you’re trying to drop your child off at school, like I do, you can get stuck behind twenty cars quite easily with one bus. Now, another school, assuming that site goes ahead because of time and the deals that are being done, it’s quite close in proximity so the buses then increase, the volume of traffic increases. I know there have been traffic studies done recently but we’re probably about, what, 55% roughly through the development, so there are a lot more cars and people still to come. Will the masterplan be changed as part of this process, so that we can factor in lay- bys and more provisions for the buses and the traffic during that point in time? I think legally it’s BAE’s masterplan, the Council’s remit is to protect the community in that masterplan and the vision of that masterplan. That masterplan serves the community, so yes, legally BAE have that. It’s going to really get my fires going if we hide behind BAE with that because the voice of us telling you is that we have an opportunity to change this. BAE are on the hook for aspects of it, but it’s not been built yet, so why not change that before it gets built, while there’s an opportunity to do that? You know, for me, legally, the section 75 is proportional to the original masterplan, not the current and the future masterplan. There must be something we can do there to annoy them about that, noise them up a bit, get something in our favour. A. Sorry, can I suggest that you ask that question next door? Everything associated with section 75 and all those issues is another workshop. Q. So, the detail of my question was that content but the question is, is that element in the scope of the design team? A. The school in isolation or the school within the masterplan. We have a site, potentially (inaudible), sorry, so we’ve got to make that work, if that’s the chosen site. What we then do, as I say, is liaise with BAE to see what impact that might have on their masterplan. That will be fed on from Alistair’s team back to BAE, through planning. We can’t, obviously, build the roads, separate roads outwith, we can maybe influence it, we can advise what we think is going to work following feedback from the community but we probably haven’t got, as you say, the gift to actually physically make changes until BAE sign it off. So, we need to consider everything you’re saying, take account of it just as Gerry says, discussions regarding the layout, the plan, that is probably the point that we have a better point to say, ‘Right, this doesn’t work, that works,’ and then take that back to Alistair’s team to work with BAE. at factor in. One of the key things is, we’ll be working very closely with Gerry Hannah, who’s next door, and his team. So, yes, Frank’s team and my team will be responsible for designing the building, building the bricks and mortar, but we can’t do that in isolation. We need to take in cognizance with Gerry to say, from a planning position, ‘We need to think about roads, we need to think about the drop-off.’ So, it’s a bit of both, we need that design work in there to
Page 122
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk make sure the pick-ups, the drop-offs, the car parking spaces, everything linked to our colleagues in Roads will be part of that planning discussion. We just can’t answer part of the section 75 stuff, next door, because it’s Alistair and Gerry but there will be that very close working relationship between us and Gerry Hannah, and the team who are next door. Q. So, I know that there was some discussion a while back about a proposed campus to include more nursery space and more high school space. What is the estimated cost for this new primary school to be built? A. £45 Million Q. What about the extension to Park Mains? A. £30 million Q. Why is there not an option to choose one of the larger sites to have a larger campus? A. One of the answers to the question is a financial one, you’re talking about 75 million, the building of a campus as you’ve described is closer to 90 million PARK MAINS The session then spent time on a discussion about Park Mains High School being extended as the secondary provision for the issue. This is not a material component of the consultation so is not included in the minute of the Public meeting. However, the detail is contained within the accompanying transcript. ACCOUNTABILITY Q. I think in the background of what people are saying there, I think a good question to ask would be, ‘How are the Council and the Council officers going to be held accountable for the process that we’re going through just now? A. I can understand the question, one of the things about this process, and I’ve said this right from the start, and I’ll say it again tonight, is that I am the named person for this. I am leading this process, I am leading this consultation, and I believe we’re doing the right thing so I will hold myself accountable for that, and I will invite you to hold me accountable if, in fact, what I say to you is what we’re going to deliver, we don’t deliver. Q. What will be the mechanism for that? What will be the mechanism for holding you accountable? A. So, I can understand the question, one of the things about this process, and I’ve said this right from the start, and I’ll say it again tonight, is that I am the named person for this. I am leading this process, I am leading this consultation, and I believe we’re doing the right thing so I will hold myself accountable for that, and I will invite you to hold me accountable.
Page 123
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q. Would you resign? A. I would have resigned, yes, and I would resign. this is important enough to me that I will put my reputation on the line to say, ‘I’m going to deliver this.’ If I don’t deliver it, or I make a complete mess of it, God forbid I don’t do either of the two of them, then I would go, ‘Aye, fair do’s,’ and I would walk away. Q. I was here ten years ago and I was sold the dream of one school for all, because I didn’t like the idea of two schools. I certainly don’t like the idea of three because of, just, the rivalry between them. So, to get to the, ‘Sold the dream, buy the house, build and live in a community,’ a community which is pretty much divided by a railway line that really annoys me. ‘We’re all in this together,’ we’re not, it’s either Dargavel or Bishopton, to me, it’s one. The third school is creating a bit of strength between everybody that it impacts but at the same time, it’s driving a bit more of a divide. So, the Council are front and centre for driving the success. A. Yes, absolutely, and I’m going to say two things to you about that. One is, never at any point am I going to ask this community to put their faith in anything I actually say, because why would you? What you need to see is action, you need to see transparent communication throughout the process, responsiveness to issues that have been raised, and some of those have been raised tonight, and that will be that. Building trust back with this community’s not going to take one statutory consultation, building trust back with this community’s going to take five years of delivering what we said we’d deliver. I don’t want you to think I’m saying that, you know, ‘I will be accountable so trust me,’ I don’t want you to do that. What I want you to do is to watch the actions, watch the behaviours, watch the processes and engage with them as fully as you can, as you’ve done tonight, which is brilliant, and we will help grow it and respond to things. It will only be at that point, at the end of it, that you can say to me, ‘Gerry, aye, do you know what,’ or, ‘Gerry, I told you that you were getting it wrong.’ But I don’t want trust in people, I want systems and structures that are tight, that you can look at and go, ‘Aye, that looks robust and that looks as though it’s going to drive,’ I take your point about the community, I do. COUNCIL DECISION MAKING There was then discussion about the process by which the council would make the decision about the outcome of the Public Consultation. IMPACT OF QUESTIONNAIRES Q. can you quantify how it is if we say no to the proposed site? It’s off the online or the forms that we’ve sent in? A. It’s not an X% type thing, it’s about the weight and the range of views. If we get a position that we do not think supports our position, we have to present that to the board to say, ‘This is not a supported proposal,’ and then they would make a decision one way or another. Then, potentially, it’s back to looking at another site or another plan.
Page 124
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q. That will increase the costs because we’ve already got the site and we’ve got it for how we’ve got it. A. Not necessarily the costs but it would lead to a slippage in timeframe. PARK MAINS There was then further discussion about Park Mains, again contained in the accompanying transcript. Session End
Page 125
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Workshop 2 Group 1 Introductions by Alasdair Morrison and Gerry Hannah Q. Why are we not following the RIBA plan of works for the programme? I raised that question in the last session and the answer was a bit woolly, so your detailed planning is before starting on site by three months, why is not the RIBA plan of works? You’re following the Hub process to procure it, so it should be aligned to RIBA. A. Yes, I think where that’s come from, I’ve had that question raised before but I think it’s because what’s been presented here, in the programme timeline, in the documents is a more generic, I mean, it’s been done in a sequential way to make it look as if you’re working your way through the maze but in reality, there will be a number of things happening at the same time. But the process that we will follow will be along the lines of the RIBA process that you’re referring to. It maybe doesn’t come across like that in the way that it’s set out there. Q. March 2025, planning application, July ’25 start on site. That’s three months, okay the duration for planning if it all goes well is fine but your sequence of actually putting your detailed planning in is right at the very end. A. No, I don’t think it is, so the thing is, I don’t think when that’s come across, I think that’s the approval of the planning application, I don’t think that’s the submission of the planning application. I think it’s, again, this way of trying to show it in a, if you’ll forgive me, in a sequential manner to make the dates, but in reality, a lot of these things will be overlapping and running in parallel, that would be my interpretation of it. Q. I would expect it to be a year before, and yes, you could rejig that, but you’d be able to save about six months to nine months in that programme by actually looking at it in detail. A. I mean, you don’t want to condense and concertina everything, and then find that at the last minute we’re not able to achieve it, because as you heard from Gerry, that wouldn’t be a great scenario for us to be in. Q. My question is a two-parter, so I asked in the last session about the design remit of the consultants. Are they designing a school in isolation or are they designing a school within the definition of the masterplan? The reason I asked the question is, a school in isolation, fine, it shouldn’t be, it should be within the definition of the masterplan, the reason I ask that is because of the implications to transport. Right now, there is an issue with buses, there are no lay-bys, there’s nowhere for them to stop really, even outside the school here, it’s on the road, not off the road. For an additional school within a stone’s throw, because we aren’t getting a different site, we’re getting that site, how are all the additional transport requirements going to be taken into cognizance? Especially given that we’re not fully developed out as a masterplan, the reason I’m asking is, proportionality of the section 75, half of that main artery hasn’t been built yet, the design is up for grabs. Can we not, as an opportunity to learn from the lessons of shoehorning things in, look at the integration to the wider community and factor in the buses, the cars, the
Page 126
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk active travel and all the things that we need to do to make it successful and lighten the load and pressure from this school, which is just down the road from it? A. One of the things we’ve concluded so far is, getting a transport consultant in to speak to us at an early stage. So, we realise obviously, as part of the consultation we’re taking forward a proposed site for the consultation, at that point we engaged with a transport consultant, just to do some early work, early prep work for us and not, so outwith the scope of a transport assessment to accompany the planning application, just to give us a, kind of, early head’s up in terms of the kinds of things that we should be looking out for. Some great points you made there in terms of the road and influencing the infrastructure yet to come because that was one of the key things that they picked up in terms of active travel corridors and wider, shared walking and cycling routes, and how we can deliver that working in partnership with BAE. That’s going to be a big focus for us going forward, so obviously yes, the pick-up and drop-off at the schools, those kinds of things. With the greatest will in the world this isn’t all going to be solved by active travel and we’re not silly enough to try and think that’s going to be the case but that’s going to be a big focus, on how we can encourage that as much as we possibly can. Big credit to the school, the staff here, the pupils, the parents who support active travel existing at this school, it’s the highest percentage active travel at any school across Renfrewshire. So, that’s a real positive. What we’d be looking to do is continue to work with this school and the new school in terms of the school travel plans and how we can make that as successful as we possibly can. But all of the points you’ve raised in there are things that we will be working with, with BAE and the plans going forward. Q. The active travel aspect’s part of your net zero strategy, so I understand the net zero strategy and your active travel but the active travel isn’t working. My daughter goes to this school, she is incredibly upset when there are awards being given for park and walk. I don’t park and walk, I’ve got work to get to. She is my priority in life but I’m here for 7:45, eight o’clock every day dropping her off, it’s okay at that time of day but see if you come ten, fifteen minutes later, it gets difficult. If you come about half an hour after that, it’s almost impossible and if you’re close to nine o’clock, there’s no way you’re getting to work on time. Active travel is a joke, we’re a fair-weather community on the west coast of Scotland, if it’s great and it’s sunny we’ll walk, if it’s wet, no way in hell, and if it’s snowing, no chance. It can’t be based on policies that are written for the UK and Scotland wide, it has to be something fit for purpose for this community, and active travel is not that. A. No, and again, we accept that that’s not going to be the single solution. It would be silly of us to sit here and think that was going to be the one stop shop to solve all of our problems, it’s not, it’s about how we make the school as connected as possible but recognising that there are other solutions at play as well. So, as Alasdair said, looking at the pick-up, drop-off facilities. We appreciate there is a peak in the morning, the peak’s probably spread out a lot more in the morning than it is in the afternoon and the afternoon’s probably a more condensed peak, and that’s the stuff we’ve started working with the school and Parent Council on, on how we can try and bring solutions to the table for that as well.
Page 127
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q. With all the research that’s been done is there going to be any retro work done to this school? The walking path in from one side of the village is awful, it’s dangerous, there are children getting knocked over, there are people with prams getting pushed out of the way, there are bikes, scooters up your ankles. There are children getting injured and hurt, it’s not safe. So, with all the work that’s being done on this proposal, what is the plan to make this area safe? A. Okay, that’s a really good point and something Alasdair and I met with BAE last week to talk around, the existing infrastructure and what we can look at. So, the transport consultant is not only looked at future improvements and the, kind of, new school coming on board, but actually, ‘What can we improve existing infrastructure-wise?’ The path network around the school was an area that’s flagged up as an area to for us to work with BAE on. Just for clarity, there is a very small amount of the road network here that the Council are responsible for, it’s still in the developer’s hands, and that’s something the Council obviously looks to adopt, the road, when the developer says it’s ready for adoption. So, that’s a process we work through with BAE and we’ll continue to do so. Kevin from the Parent Council has flagged up what I would term the, kind of, remote path to link the school to the-, Q. To the path that comes through the park? A. Yes, and that’s an area that we want to follow up as a priority in terms of, there was a previous suggestion that the whole path network was three metres wide, there’s no way the whole path network is three metres wide, that’s the, kind of, standard we want to see. So, we recognise there are some pinch points, some pinch locations on the route there, Q. Is that bit owned by the Council currently? Has that been handed over? There was then discussion about the role of BAE systems and how they could be held responsible for changes to travel arrangements in the area. Q. So, my quick question was, you said it’s the highest percentage of active transport at this school, what is that percentage, and what is the Council average? What would you be projecting it to be for the new school? I’m assuming it would be no more or equal to the average for the whole area, for the whole Council. A. I don’t have the exact figures to hand and I’d need to double check that, so don’t quote me on that and I’ll be able to confirm the figures. That was, from memory, a couple of percentage points higher than the closest school. So, that’s something that we would look at as a minimum standard going forward now, because we’ve been really successful and the kids have been really successful in really promoting that. We recognise that won’t be every single day in November and December. We’re not, again, silly enough to think that’s going to be the case either. But we want to provide opportunities as much as possible. If anyone has looked at the bike sheds outside here in the morning, they are absolutely jam packed and we’ve worked with the school in providing additional infrastructure, and that’s what we would do with any new school location as well. Regardless of what site it was, we would work with the school in terms of identifying what infrastructure would make it as successful as possible for active travel.
Page 128
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q. You’ve touched upon the provision of transportation getting into this school, obviously it’s a bit of an issue, particularly I see, around the intersection between Slateford Road and Craigton. It’s a bit crazy in the morning, so, it’s already like that, we’ve got buses taking people to Park Mains, buses taking people, I would assume, into Renfrew, to Trinity, and we’ve got buses taking people elsewhere. What are we going to do when we add another school into that mix? Is there going to be any retroactive work to the existing infrastructure, to-, do you know what I mean? You’re never going to get a bus down the road, down Slateford in the morning, to get to a new school because you can’t get a car down there in the morning. So, what’s going to be done to address that? A. The work we’ve been doing at the earliest stage just now, is purely focused on the new school for now, it’s then about taking that work and taking that much wider. Within the programme you’ll see obviously it refers to a planning application, within that planning application process we would be doing a transport assessment that looks at the transport in the widest possible sense. It’s not just about walking and wheeling to and from school, but the reason for getting the transport consultant on board so early with us, is so that we can do quite a lot of that work in advance. We don’t want to wait for a planning application to then tell us, ‘Here’s what you need to do in a relatively short period of time.’ We’re trying to get as much of that early work done that we possibly can. So, if you look at the junction capacity for instance, the junction at the bottom of the road, the traffic signals junction there, that operates at about 60% capacity, which is really, really low, really low for an urban type junction arrangement. So, what we know is, we’ve got plenty of capacity there, ‘Right, okay, so where else is a concern?’ This transport consultant will tell us where else the concern is. The example you’ve used there of buses being on the road, ‘How many buses are there going to be?’ That transport modelling, telling us where the buses are going to be going, those are the next, kind of, steps of work that we’ll be looking to take forward. Q. A few weeks ago, my wife and I passed the front of the school and we met our local police officer who was there advising some order into the drop-off location. He said he was concerned about the safety issues, so I knew I was coming to these meetings and so, a few weeks hence I decided, I might even have been watching your car, I don’t know. I stood, it’s okay. I decided to look at what was happening, so I was there round about, maybe a wee bit after you, at 8:15. There were two cars on the east side, no, no, the south side, you guys have got this north and south, east, west rubbish. Anyway, I think it’s the south side, two cars. By the time 8:55 came, there were 25 cars and then the people have got to stop when the other one’s coming the other way, the bus is there. What we have in Bishopton, in the existing school in Old Greenock Road, it’s like the dodgems sometimes. What has been created for this school is exactly the same thing, it’s not any different. What would be the solution? You mentioned lay-bys, you’ve got an undeveloped piece of land on the south side of this school, is that Renfrewshire land? A. The immediate acre and a half just, Discussion: The immediate acre and a half just,
Page 129
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk M1: Right, that would be a good site for a short stay car park. A: That is the proposal that we’re currently working on, I wouldn’t call it a short stay car park, M1: Well, I think you should work on that, that would take, A: But a drop-off and pick-up location for the school. M1: Think about the capacity that you need for that car park and that would take the cars off Arrochar Drive. A: Yes, it should, if it’s successfully implemented it should make a great deal of impact on that issue that you’ve raised. Q. Whatever the location of the new school, you do the same thing? A. That is currently in the plans. Q. You were saying that the way that people are using that road isn’t the way that it was designed, how are they supposed to use it? A. Well, what I mean by that in terms of not the way that they’re using it, is that if the road infrastructure was all in place and Arrochar Drive was complete all the way up to meet Craigton Road. Q. So a through road? A. Well, what I mean by that in terms of not the way that they’re using it, is that if the road infrastructure was all in place and Arrochar Drive was complete all the way up to meet Craigton Road. Q. Is the site then, position nine or whatever it is, is that not the-, sorry, is that not then just going to force more traffic onto that junction at Slateford and Craigton? You’re then going to have the added complication of people from that end trying to this school and people from this end trying to get to the new school. Or trying to get in and out of the village. Well, yes, in the morning it’s carnage, there are people parked up on the pavement, you can’t see round the corner, there are cars everywhere, people everywhere, kids everywhere, buses everywhere. A. In terms of the junction capacity, just at Craigton and Slateford there, is that what you’re reckoning will be a pinch point? It’s one of those things that with the current road network not being fully complete, we really need to look at the transport modelling with the assumption that that road network is complete, and how the road network is then going to be used with that completed section. Again, junction capacity we’re not looking at being an issue for us, it’s more about, as you say, maybe the mention of things like the buses and how we can look at potential solutions that might be in place for the buses. From a wider infrastructure point of view, obviously the pick-up, the drop-off-, the parking facility, rather, at the train station and the completion of that is obviously going to be a thing that we’ll be looking for the developer to take forward as well. So, it’s not just focused on what we do
Page 130
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk about one particular junction, it’s really looking at the traffic modelling taking in the whole of the road network and what potential solutions there might be for us. Further Discussion about road access – details in accompanying transcript. Section 75 Q. So, the question I got asked to bring to this one, I didn’t get to ask at the other one, I moved here ten years ago, I was sold the dream of a community with one school for all the kids to go to. That’s how I grew up, I went to a 600 capacity primary school, I had no problems with the capacity, I liked the idea of one school, one community. We’re now having three schools, that’s horrendous, the politics between those schools is not acceptable. But section 75, I don’t understand, I’m not fully up to speed with section 75 agreements. It was proportionality and it was based against the original design, and capacity and number of residential units in the masterplan. That’s obviously grown significantly, why has the section 75 not grown along with it, based on the new plots and units? And if it’s not, why can’t we do something retrospectively like other developments across Scotland where they charge a levy per residential unit to contribute towards the infrastructure and costs around that area? A. Okay, there’s a lot in there, so, I mean, I probably won’t have time to answer all the queries about the section 75 but in a nutshell, the original outline planning permission, in terms of the number of residential units for Dargavel was 2,500. That was the original masterplan, the community growth area, the structural growth plan of yesteryear. BAE then came forward in about 2016, something like that, I might get the years slightly off here, but 2016, 2017, with a planning application to increase that by another 1,350. At the same time as doing that, and again, I can’t offer you an explanation tonight because I wasn’t involved at the time, I wasn’t even close to the project, the Council took the decision, amongst other things, amid other decisions that were taking place which we could go into but, like I said, we probably won’t have time, in terms of the money for the Community Development Trust in Bishopton, money that was going to get put towards Newton Road playing fields. But the Council decided to then remove certain elements from within the section 75 for Dargavel as a result of granting that planning permission for the increased number of houses. I can’t answer the question as to why they did that in detail because, like I say, I wasn’t involved and I don’t think of the-, well, I know none of the officers who are here tonight were indeed still-, who are currently involved with the Council. So, that decision’s been taken, it has been, to use your terminology, watered down, if that was the terminology you used, or I’ll use that terminology. Section 75 was diluted to a significant extent between the 2012 version, the original planning application, and the 2018 version that we now have. The point you were making before about, ‘Will the new primary school be designed on the basis of, almost, from scratch, or will it be designed within the existing masterplan that we have?’ We’re faced with a number of constraints, not least of which is a masterplan that’s been agreed, a section 75 that’s been agreed, and a broad layout of where housing zones and where the infrastructure will go that’s been agreed. That is effectively baked in and that’s why we’ve only got the infrastructure that we’ve got. I can’t do anything about that as we sit here today, I can negotiate. with Gerry and other
Page 131
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk colleagues. with BAE to try and make the most of what we’ve got, Louisa was involved in that meeting as well. We’ve certainly insisted that they need to do an awful lot better in terms of completing infrastructure long before the school is here, long before the second primary school, and also to make that based on a much wider, much better, much more enhanced level of path network to allow active travel to happen in the places that it can happen. We’ve still to explore and finalise the details in terms of what that’ll mean for car parking, and drop-off, and lay off, bus lay-bys and such like, we’re still in discussion with them about that. But we will be doing everything we can to make the traffic system here work as best as it can, given the circumstances that we’ve got. SESSION ENDS
Page 132
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk WORKSHOP 1 AND 2 (combined) Group 2 These have been combined because the discussion was more challenging to minute. The minute of this session combines questions and summary of discussion about issues where there were comments made rather than questions asked. 1. There was initial discussion about a specific matter related to what school a child would go to and the sibling policy. SITE CHOICE Q. Talk us through, there are a lot of scores that are very close here, what was it that made the site that you’ve decided on for the proposal, why did you go with that one? A. The 23 sites that were under consideration are all set out there in the matrix and hopefully the scoring is relatively self-explanatory in terms of why scores were attributed to the individual sites. Then all that’s happened is they’ve just been put forward and populated the matrix on that basis. So, the criteria are along the lines of ownership of the site, its current development land status, how close it is to the households that will form that catchment, any additional costs that would be involved, in terms of, if you had to build new roads to it for instance, that’s obviously a significant factor. So, it’s been extrapolated through, and as you pointed out, a number of the sites score quite closely, they do. Q. We weren’t asked our opinions prior to this, which is frustrating me because it’s already been commented that if we propose a different solution, that almost puts everything back to square one. Which in my opinion means that’s presented as if that puts 2027 at risk, so if we did propose a different solution, does that put the 2027 deadline at risk? How long does it take you to get to this point, and if we proposed a different solution, how quickly could we get to the next consultation for that new solution? CHOICE OF SITE, TIMING OF PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES There was discussion about views on the site and the consultation on the choice. There was concern expressed about the view that the site was a “done deal” and, despite the view, it was the wrong choice, there was no option to change it because of timings. The Council confirmed that the site was not a “done deal” and if the consultation outcome was that an alternative site should be chosen, then the council would respond to that, as a statutory obligation. The council has consistently stressed the importance of having the new school open by August 2027, to prevent children being sent to more than one school as there would be insufficient space in Dargavel Primary and Bishopton Primary. However, if the prevailing view was that the delay would be more important to get a preferred site, than arrangements would be made to accommodate that. There was then a statement it was the wrong site due to the significant issues with traffic which is dangerous. There was further concern about the timescale and whether it could be achieved. The person wanted that statement recorded for public record. The fact the site was central to the development was a key consideration.
Page 133
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk There was then discussion about active travel. The council confirmed that active travel was not the only consideration and that a range of traffic management arrangements were being explored. There was then some discussion about other sites and why they are worthy of consideration. There was particular focus on site 22 and there was a full explanation given of the planning process as the site is in the green belt. There was then further discussion about site E1 and the arrangements being put in place, especially in terms of traffic. There was then further discussion about all aspects of the traffic issue – this is the major issue in the consultation. There was then discussion about the community facilities and how important these were. The council team stressed full commitment to the council facilities being built into the school as a priority. DESIGN OF THE SCHOOL The bulk of the discussion in the second workshop with Gerry Lyons Interim Head of Education and Emma Henry Head of Inclusion was focused on the design of the school: Strong views the school should not be open plan. Concern about: • The experience in the current school and issues with noise. • The experience of children with additional support needs in the current school. • The planned work on acoustics and when it will be completed. There was detail given about the space planning for the new build school and the consideration which had been given to providing flexible learning spaces, which could support learning in all 4 contexts for learning. There was also a commitment to keep the learning needs of all children at the centre of the design process. There was a clear statement from the Council team that the intent was not to design an open plan school and that the community would be involved in discussions as the design process developed. COMMUNITY FACILITIES There was a strong view expressed that community facilities should be fundamental to the design of the new school. There were explanations as to the impact of the current lack of facilities. The Council team renewed their commitment to the school providing a range of facilities for community use Last Session Summing Up Comments: F4: I think you guys should have had your due diligence to go back through the history, know the issues, know the questions, because a lot of them are repeat questions that we’ve asked time and time again, and never had an
Page 134
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk answer. So, you guys had a due diligence to trail back through all the other recorded meetings, identify what was going to come up, because we’ve asked it before, and have an answer for us. That’s a consultation, don’t feel insulted at F4: So, they’re talking about surveys they’ve had, they’ve had 253 surveys and they’re saying that there’s an overwhelming difference in opinion on those. So, again, that’s a very small section of the community. F4: Our concern is, the people that have filled out those forms don’t necessarily have the full information at hand because if they’re not at these meetings they’re not asking probing questions to identify PR spin versus fact. That’s our concern, and that’s why tonight, we’ve had the opportunity to ask the experts, we’ve had the opportunity to decide, ‘Are we satisfied with the answer of the experts?’ I know I’m not, so that’s why it would be interesting to gauge from the room, ‘How do we feel? And does the feeling tonight represent the 253 surveys that are filled out?’ Gillian Hoyle: I have one question, when are you going to come back to us about Park Mains, the secondary allocation? Gerry Lyons: I have to finish this proposal and that will take me to Easter, and I can’t give you a precise date but some time between Easter and June I will come back and have discussions about Park Mains. Gillian Hoyle: The reason I’m asking is because I don’t think I can confidently say whether I think plot nine is the right allocation or not without understanding Park Mains, because I do not believe we’ve got the right allocation for the secondary school. Gerry Lyons: Okay, I disagree with you, I believe that I can show that, but it’s a discussion about Park Mains and this is a consultation about Dargavel Primary. Gillian Hoyle: It relates to the primary school for me. Gerry Lyons: Yes. F5: Is anything that’s said here tonight likely to change the proposal of preferred location or is it a done deal that it’s going to be-, Gerry Lyons: No, it’s not a done deal, we have to pull together, not just tonight, we’ve had another public meeting already, we’ve had all the information sessions, we’ve had the meetings with the statutory consultees, who have been-, well, I’ve not had the meeting with Dargavel Parent Council yet, I’ll do that on 12th March. I’m going to the Community Council tomorrow night, we’ve met with all the statutory consultees, we’ve met with the children, the teachers, the elected members. We have to pull all of that together as the outcome of the consultation, this is just one part of it, but having done that (Timecode: 00:40:00), we have a statutory responsibility, if we believe that
Page 135
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk there are clear messages about things that need to change, to take that on board and change them. That’s what we will do if we see that as coming across clearly from the responses. Q: Gerry, what’s the timescale on that then, in terms of decision making? A: So, the statutory consultation finishes on 26th March, Education Scotland then have three weeks to do their work. So, they do, you know, they look at all of this, they’ve been here, they looked at all the documentation, they’re coming to both schools on the week beginning 26th. They then write a report, they’ve got three weeks to do that. We then have three weeks to respond to their report and then that’s all pulled together and it will be taken to a meeting of the elected members on the board on 23rd May. That will be the decision where it either goes forward or it stops and then the work, and that timeline that you’ve got there, will move forward from there. Yes. Q: If the proposed site goes ahead and you’re ready for August ’27, does that mean that the kids here get their playground back? Like, do the buildings outside get taken down? A: The temporary classrooms have got a five year warranty on them and one of the things that we have looked at is how quickly we would remove them if we get to that position, and we can move them in a-, Frank? A: A matter of weeks, so yes. Q: But the capacity, that’s the plan? A: Yes. I just wasn’t sure. What developer contributions are going to be extracted from the remaining phases of residential developments? Zero. Yes, we’re not doing that. F1: M3: Various voices: F1: Alasdair Morrison: I mean, I don’t know if it was with this group, forgive me, or if it was with the group next door earlier, but the section 75 agreement already sets out the developer contributions for the quantum of housing development for Dargavel. That’s what’s usually agreed at what’s called a planning in principle stage, which was that 2018 decision I referred to. Usually then when you come forward with your detailed layout and design of the houses, there’s no further discussion around that. That’s the normal way the planning process works, anything that comes additional in terms of developer contributions would be at the behest of BAE.
Page 136
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Q: A: Q: A Q: A: Q: A. Q: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Gerry Lyons: Kevin: There are examples around Scotland of other developments that don’t have section 75s and they apply a levy to the units of residential development built. Why are we not exploring that as a legal standpoint? I don’t know where these examples are but if you’re talking about the roof tax, as it became known in the media, it’s not legally possible to do that in Scotland. There’s case law in Aberdeenshire where they were significantly reprimanded as a Council for trying to do that with a big development to the south on one of the estates. The Highland Council are doing it. They don’t do a roof tax, they do-, They don’t do a roof tax, no, they do (talking over each other) No, it’s called a developer contribution standard, which is applied in terms of for new developments, and Renfrewshire Council is currently in the process of working towards having such approved guidance. Because there are a number of plots still to be developed and units to be built. There are. And we’ve already heard tonight, which will be minuted, and everyone already knows it anyway, that the section 75 was, as you said, diluted or watered down. Surely, we should be doing everything we can, or you as a Council should be doing everything you can, to regain as much money from the huge profits that these developers are making. Yes, well I We’re the ones left with that legacy, we’re the ones that are being robbed of a community that should be a lot stronger and better. Yes, tonight we’re talking about schools, what are these kids going to do at weekends and on evenings? When they get older and teenagers? There’s a huge capacity right now but when they’re older it’s going to be wild, and we’re left with that. Yes, one of the really interesting things that’s come up through all the conversation we’ve had is that one. ‘What about the teenagers and the young people as they go through?’ And I think that is a really important thing to look at and to have conversations about, and to explore, so that’s certainly one aspect I think will come out of this consultation, that we will have a further look at, ‘Well, what can we offer our young people so that they’re not bored, and then because they’re bored, they then start to do things that they wouldn’t normally do?’ So, it’s a really helpful input actually. Gerry, can I ask one, sorry?
Page 137
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Gerry Lyons: Aye, of course. Kevin: Just following on from that, in terms of any, kind of, building that we do with the school, anything else within Bishopton here, there’s got to be a community benefit aspect included into that in terms of the scoring matrix for any contactor etc. that’s approved. What is that going to look like for Bishopton? Is that money going to stay within Bishopton? Can we stipulate things such as contribution towards Holm Park, for instance, and the facilities there? Gerry Lyons: I need to take that back to the procurement team, Kevin, but I will because I don’t know the answer. M7: Why are procurement not here? Gerry Lyons: We, went with the biggest issues that had come up in the early stages and procurement hasn’t really been one of them but that’s a question we don’t know the answer to. Procurement will be able to give you a steer and we’ll certainly going to come back to you with that. F1: The next time can we have people who are going to come and lead the bull by the horns, instead of people that say, ‘I believe,’ ‘I don’t expect you to have trust in me,’ ‘Don’t take my word,’? It’s not acceptable to have a leader that’s representing the community, Gerry Lyons: Listen, what I’m saying to you is, M7: Don’t interrupt what the lady’s saying. Gerry Lyons: Sorry, pardon. F1: No, you’ve stood there through the whole first section using, ‘I believe,’ and saying, ‘You don’t need to trust what I’m saying,’ ‘Don’t take my words as a promise of delivery.’ No leader stands there and sets that tone, a leader leads by example. Gerry Lyons: I’m going to come back at you on that because I couldn’t disagree with you more. What a leader doesn’t do is say, ‘Believe me, believe me, believe me,’ when you believed people previous to me and they let you down. What I am asking you to do, is to watch the processes, watch the systems, watch the engagement, watch the progress through all of those things and then make a decision. Don’t take my word for it because you did that before. So, it’s not a failure of leadership in my opinion, what I’m saying to you is an honest steer, which is, ‘There’s loads to be done here, there are lots of processes to go through, were I you and I’d gone through what you’d gone through, then I would be reluctant to take someone’s word on it.’ F1: Take our (talking over each other) out of it,
Page 138
Director of Children’s Services: Janie O’Neill Council Headquarters, Renfrewshire House, Cotton Street, Paisley PA1 1TZ Website: www.renfrewshire.gov.uk Gerry Lyons: Just let me finish, and on that basis, I wouldn’t ask you to take my word for it but what I will ask you to do is to watch the actions, and hopefully at the end of that you’ll come back to me and say, ‘Gerry, you did deliver,’ and then that will be a good thing for the children. F1: (talking over each other) we want evidence, we want facts and we want information, take the emotion out of it, as a professional, on a professional level. This is not professional, it’s not been delivered professionally and we’re not-, Gerry Lyons: Okay, all I can do is to say, I note your point, thank you for making it, I completely disagree with it. F1: (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: And that’s now nine o’clock so I have to bring it to a conclusion. Louisa Mahon: Thank you very much, everyone. F4: At what point do we find out-, so, of all the questions that have been posted out or the information grabs, what timeline are we looking at for getting that back to us? Gerry Lyons: So, once we pull all of this together, the timeline is that period between the consultation period finishing and all the reports being written. F4: (talking over each other) the transcription for tonight? Louisa Mahon: There were some key questions that we’ll get back to you asap on. If you give us, like, a week to come back to you, would that be okay? We’ve all got all your email addresses from everyone that’s here, so we can either try and get it out to you directly or we can put it out through the Parent Councils and the Community Council, would that be okay? So, key questions we’ve picked up tonight, we’ll get that (talking over each other) F4: When will the transcription for tonight’s meeting be available? Louisa Mahon: We normally have that around (talking over each other) David: The clock is ticking, the clock is ticking, we need to see action from the Council in getting this a bit better than it is. I can’t say they’re ever going to get it right, and BAE have-, they’re a corporate body, they’ve done everything that Renfrewshire Council asked them to do, and it’s the mistakes that have been made by Renfrewshire Council that have caused all of this. Gerry Lyons: Yes, and as I said at the start, we’ve got to now try to move forward to change that situation. Thank you for coming along and thank you for your participation this evening.
Page 139
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Appendix F Gerry Lyons: Janie O’Neill: David Love: Jack Lochans: Laura Miller: Gerry Lyons: Laura Miller: Gerry Lyons: Laura Miller: Gerry Lyons: Laura Miller: Gerry Lyons: Maggie Russell: Gerry Lyons: Louisa Mahon: Grant: George Morrison: Gerry Lyons: Jack Clark: Ann: Good evening, everyone, lovely to see you all and for the parents that are here, welcome. This is all about your children and that’s the most important thing. There are loads of officers here as well, so we’ll maybe do a wee round the table and let the officers introduce themselves. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m Gerry Lyons, I’m the interim Head of Service for Children’s Services in Renfrewshire. Hi, I’m Janie O’Neill, I’m the Director for Children’s Services in Renfrewshire Council. Hi, I’m David Love, the Chief Planning Officer for Renfrewshire Council. Hi, Jack Lochans Education Manager for Renfrewshire Council. Do you want me to-, You can say if you want, you’re under no pressure. (Talking over each other) just the officers. No, my name’s Laura Miller, I’m one of the-, I’m a parent of a child at this school. And what primary is your child? She’s in primary one. She’s in primary one. Yes. Okay, that’s fine. My name’s Maggie Russell, I’m the Secretary, joint Local Secretary for the EIS trade union and so, I’m interested just to hear, listen to what the information is around-, because it’ll affect, obviously, our trade union members as well. Good to see you, Maggie. Hi everyone, I’m Louisa, I’m the Head of Marketing and Communications at the Council and a member of the Corporate Management Team, so it’s lovely to see everyone here tonight, thank you for participating. I’m Grant, I’m actually a local resident of Dargavel, I just came round for that, and that’s me. George Morrison, local resident, Chairman of Bishopton Football Club, retired public sector Manager. And avid football supporter. Hi, I’m Jack Clark, I’m a resident of Paisley but I’m just interested to see what’s happening with the school. And I’m Ann, I’m not of this actual board but I’m extremely interested in what’s happening, I’m a Councillor in, sort of, South West, but I’m just extremely interested because it’s an incredibly vital thing that’s happening, so.
Page 140
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Frank Farrell: Gerry Hannah: Chris Dalrymple: Louise Chisholm: Gerry Carlton: Gillian Hoyle: Andrea McMillan: Gerry Lyons: Peter McColl: Lucy Adamson: Lauren Johnston: Gerry Lyons: I’m Frank Farrell I’m the (inaudible) Programme Manager for Property Services at Renfrewshire Council. Good evening, everyone, my name’s Gerry Hannah, I’m the Council’s Head of Climate, Public Protection and Roads. Good evening, everyone, my name’s Chris Dalrymple, I am the Head of Facilities and Property Services within Renfrewshire Council. Three hats on unfortunately, so one, my Property Services team will build the second school, secondly my Hard FM team will look after and maintain that school, and thirdly, my Soft FM team will do all the cleaning, catering and janitorial within the school. Okay, I’m Louise Chisholm, I’m one of the Deputy Heads at Dargavel. Hi everyone, I’m Gerry Carlton, I’m the Head Teacher at Dargavel. Hi, I’m Gillian Hoyle, I have a child in primary one. Hi, I’m Andrea McMillan and I’m from Education Scotland, so I’m here as an observer tonight. So, Education Scotland will do an independent report following the completion of this consultation. So, it’s a common thing for us to come along, so you might see me taking a few notes, nothing is attributed directly to people, it’s just to inform in our future report. And you’ve got colleagues there? I’m Peter McColl, I’m from the Consultation Institute, we’ve been helping to plan the consultation. Hi, I’m Lucy Adamson, I’m the Council’s Communications Manager, I work with Louisa. I’m Lauren Johnston, I’m the Service Improvement Manager for Children’s Services. I remember when I was younger, they used to say that one of the things that was unique about Partick Thistle Football Club was that at the start of every game they could get the fans to introduce themselves because there were so few of them. So, we’re, kind of, falling into that, it’s unusual that at a public consultation everybody introduces themselves but the numbers are such that we can do that. Let me just talk you through the, kind of, context of this meeting, so we’ve had some information sessions, we’ve had drop-in sessions. We are in the middle of a statutory public consultation and this is the public meeting that is a statutory requirement of any public consultation. So, it’s slightly different from the drop-ins that-, for example the one you were at last week, in that sense that this is, kind of, part of the report, everything that comes out of this is going to be included in the report. And it is an opportunity for everyone to gather thoughts and views in a more formal way. The structure of the night I’m going to take you through shortly, but I’m going to start with just an introductory presentation. It will be very short and then we can talk about how we’re going to make the night work to the benefit of the parents, primarily. I don’t really care about what’s to the
Page 141
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 benefit of the officers but it’s got to benefit the parents, so we’ll try to do that. So, there are key principles in everything, certainly that I do as an education person all the way through my career, and it’s always started with the same thing, which is, ‘How do we get the best for the children?’ This whole exercise, this whole process is about, ‘How do we get the best for the children?’ In this particular context, in terms of primary provision and this statutory consultation is about that, it’s about the building of a second primary school on an identified site, and on the catchment areas for the two schools. But it’s not really about that mechanical set of issues, it’s about saying, ‘How do we get this right for the children in primary one, now, the ones that are three years old, who are going to be coming through, the ones who are not yet born, and do the very best for them?’ And sitting alongside that is that this school should also enhance this community, it should add community facilities, it should allow people in the local community to be able to take part in all kinds of activities, some sport, some performing arts, some health and fitness, whatever it’s going to be. So, the two, kind of, drivers of the proposal are the children and the community, and if we can get this right, we would expect to deliver for both. So, the outcomes of tonight are slightly, I suppose, altered because of the few numbers of parents that are here, and that will be part of conversation, I imagine. But we want to share as much information as we can, we want to be as transparent as we can possibly be, which is completely transparent, and we want you to know the facts. There is nothing here that’s off the table in terms of talking about things and we want to be completely clear about that, because that allows you to make a decision about the proposal. We want to listen, we especially want to listen to the parents, to the community representatives, to everyone that’s here with a-, I suppose, who’s got a vested interest, who are directly affected by this, we want to hear your views. And probably equally importantly, we want you to feel that your views are being heard, and are being taken seriously, and are being responded to, so that’s important. The challenge sometimes of a statutory consultation is that you need a proposal, the Act says you have to propose something, but the proposal is merely that, it’s a proposal. So, one of the things we want to know about is, ‘Are there alternatives to that proposal and which one would you like us to consider?’ So, I’ll give you an example that in one of the conversations I’ve had someone was suggesting that the first step, rather than build the new school, should be to extend this school to buy time. So, we’ve got that as an alternative proposal that we’ve had some discussions about and that will stay as a live alternative proposal throughout the consultation period, and we’ll respond to that towards the end. So, if there are other proposals then we want to hear them, and we want to consider them, and we have a statutory requirement to consider them, so we’ll certainly do that. We want everyone to feel comfortable, we want everyone to feel you can contribute and say whatever you want to say, and have that heard and responded to appropriately. And we want tonight to be positive, it doesn’t matter what the numbers are, tonight is about your child, and your child, and about your
Page 142
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 community, and everyone’s community, so that’s the important thing, that you have a positive experience, and that you leave here saying, ‘Aye, that was worth doing, that was worth going to.’ You get advice about how you run public meetings and it tends to be about bigger crowds, and about respect, and-, but all I’m going to say is that every single engagement we’ve had with the community of Dargavel throughout this process has been exactly what you would want, it’s been open, it’s been frank, it’s been respectful, hopefully on both sides. And we’ve got a chance to understand the lived experience that you’ve had so that we can respond to that and make it better, and tonight’s no different, we just want to hear those things. So, tonight’s plan has shifted slightly, we wanted to get around the table and talk about all aspects of this. Depending on the numbers, we were going to split into two groups, we’re now just going to do a round table discussion. So, it is recorded, I don’t take these everywhere I go, by the way, just in case you (Timecode: 00:10:00) thought, you know, I just walk about with these big microphones. It’s not that at all, but it is recorded and that’s more about us being able to keep an accurate record of the discussion, as opposed to anything public. It’s just being able to take it, we will then take it and have it transcribed and that will allow us then to take time with what we’ve got. So, coffee break we’ll have, all the points will be discussed and covered, and then we’ll look at what happens next, and that’s what we’re hoping to do tonight. So, very quickly, this is what we’ve heard so far. So, so far we’ve had three drop-in sessions in Dargavel Primary, three drop-in sessions in Bishopton Primary, two information exchanges in here last week. I’ve met with the Parent Council of Bishopton Primary, I will meet with the Parent Council of Dargavel Primary, we’ve heard from the children and some of their stuff is up there, and some more on the screens. Both schools, Bishopton and Dargavel, I’ve met with both groups of staff to hear their views and their concerns. And then we’ve pulled together what the big issues are that have come out from that process. And the first one is, the projections, the numbers, the data, that was our issue the last time, the numbers didn’t turn out, let’s be honest, the way we expected them to, and hence the reason we’re here. So, the roll projections, then, have been a big conversation, to say, ‘Right, have you got it right? Have you learned from previous mistakes? Are you confident about your projections? Tell us more about that.’ So, we can talk more about that tonight as well, there’s no problem with that. So, part of the proposal is not just that we build a new school, it’s that we build it on a site at the north of Craigton Drive, and again, ‘How have we done that? How did we get to that?’ And if you’ve got questions about that, and people already have had-, we know there’s a big concern about traffic, we know there’s a big concern about cars, and travel, and congestion, and all of those issues, more around safety than anything else. So, again, we’ve had some discussion and we can have more discussion about that tonight. The design of the building, we’ve designed this building in a particular way. One of the really positive pieces of work that was done prior to this process was, the staff who work here have been involved in discussions about the new school, have fed in their experience of working in this school, as have
Page 143
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 members of the community, parents, and various other people. And we’ve learned from that, and we’ve fed that in to the design of the new school, but we will talk a bit about the design tonight, and answer any questions that you’ve got about that. One of the particular ones we’ve have had is that the open plan is something that we would want to have another look at, and we will certainly be having another look at that at, and ‘Are we factoring in planning for children with additional support needs?’ And in terms of our commitment to all of our children, then, we absolutely have to do that, and we can talk a bit more about that as well. The second part, of course, is the community facility, 98% of parents, as we were coming out of the last situation, said, ‘This has to be a community facility, it has to provide things that we don’t have as yet, so how are we going to do that?’ And we’ve had some discussions about that, and George and I talked about that last time as well. And the project delivery, people have said, ‘August 2027 feels tight, are you going to get it ready for August 2027?’ So, we can talk more about that, we can talk about the project plan, but that’s already prompted some discussions about, ‘What might we have in place if there seem to be delays?’ I won’t say, ‘In the event that there’s a pandemic,’ because God forbid that we should have that, because we won’t have an answer if there’s a pandemic, but something smaller scale, ‘What do we do?’ So, these are all the things that have come up, as I say, alternatives are part of this process, they have to be, but more importantly, they ought to be because we want to know we’re doing the right thing for the children and for the community, so we need to know that from you. These are the things we’ve heard about so far, I’m just going to finish with what the children have said. You can have a wee wander around and see what the Dargavel children have said, it’s not too dissimilar to what the Bishopton children said. ‘It’s a bit too close to a burn,’ was their view on the site, that’s not unreasonable. They were a bit concerned about falling in, to be fair, and I, kind of, get that, so that’s quite nice. They thought the catchment was fine, ‘Make sure Bishopton doesn’t get too big, the catchment should be even,’ but they were very concerned that they’d heard that we were building the school beside a bomb factory and they wanted to know if there were still bombs in said factory. I couldn’t answer that question, I said I would come back to them to confirm there are in fact no bombs, so the children were very clear. The children have been great around welcoming Dargavel children into the school, they feel they’ve had more new people to get to know and new friends. It’s felt a bit uncomfortable at times, particularly in that interim period, as opposed to now, when the two schools were together and operating separately, and they didn’t like that, they thought that was strange, so they talked to that. They also talked about the fact that, you know, with more children in the school, ‘Is there a possibility that there might be more bullying?’ And my answer to that, to all of them, was, ‘The staff in the school, the aims of the school, the ethos of the school will make sure that that’s not the case,’ but they wanted to ask that question and their view is the most important of all. In terms of the future of Bishopton Primary they had a very clear message which was, ‘You’re not going to knock it down, are you?’ I think somebody
Page 144
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 had said, ‘There’s a man coming who’s going to knock your school down,’ because until I said, ‘No,’ to that, they were a bit tense about asking that question. And they would like a more modern school, and then lastly, ‘What would make Bishopton Primary better?’ Well, they would like a zip wire, a swing and more mirrors in the toilets, so nice basic stuff there. The mirrors in the toilets were a particular issue around if you’ve got tomato ketchup on your face and you need to get it wiped off, or if your pal tells you, ‘You’ve got tomato ketchup on your face,’ and you need to check because maybe your pal’s just winding you up. So, what was great about the children was how open they were about their experience of having other children in the school and what it meant for them. But their voice is vitally important and some of what they said there is important to us, and you’ll see that from the Dargavel consultation as well. But we deliberately finish with the children because no matter what our discussion is tonight, we want to keep the children at the centre of it. Is that okay? So, there are the basics of where we are, the rest of the night is really as open ended as it has to be. I can lead on some of those issues, which I will go back to, these things here, and anybody that’s got any questions then, we’ll answer them as fully and in as much detail as we can. We’ve got the experts around the room who we will call on to give you a specific answer but that’s what we’re going to try and achieve tonight, is that okay? So, anywhere you want to start? Anyone at all? As a good teacher I always give thinking time. Louise Chisholm: Actually, Gerry, can I just ask about the ASN needs? Because that’s not something I’ve picked up a lot on, and it’s something I’ve been asked about specifically recently, and I haven’t had the answer to. I’ve got a friend who teaches at Riverbrae and she was particularly asking, and I couldn’t answer that question. What are the plans in terms of teaching numbers, or? Gerry Lyons: There are a range of plans that tend not to tie into teacher numbers per se, but much more into the way the school’s designed. So, all the classrooms have client spaces and breakout spaces for children to get time just to themselves, there are spaces like that around the school, particularly important for neurodivergent children, children who struggle to cope with too much noise, you know, any breaks in routine. So, there are lots of breakout spaces, there’s one in every classroom, designed, there are additional ones-, there are support bases for children to work in small groups or to get targeted support based on the needs, so they’re built into the design of the school as well. One of the specific matters we’ve had asked of us is about children who are hearing impaired, so we are going to involve-, do a bit of a consult with an education audiologist, just to get their view on things we should definitely watch out for, things we should definitely be building in to the design of the building. We have a fundamental commitment to inclusion and to meeting the needs (Timecode: 00:20:00) of all of our children, and that will inform everything that we’re doing here. And anything that we learn throughout the process, we will feed it back in but some of it is very much about the design of the building and the outdoor spaces are important from that point of view as
Page 145
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 well. So, lots of different spaces, lots of different kinds of bases for children and we’ll take on board audiology, and visual impairment as well, obviously, it goes without saying, to ensure that it’s the most inclusive school it can be. But it’s very much at the forefront of our thinking in terms of design. Louise Chisholm: And if there are children with higher needs, is there any thought of having extra space for people who can’t be accommodated in a mainstream school, or not in the whole, sort of, big picture of things here? Is that just not going to happen? Yes, so fundamentally we are committed to a presumption of mainstreaming, that’s the policy of the government and we work to that policy. And we actually are very much of the view that if we can have our children in mainstream schools, that’s where they can be. However, through our planning process and the Staged Intervention, if there are children for whom that’s not appropriate, we have a range of other options that we can use for (talking over each other). So, they would attend schools which are already there? Yes. It’s just her thought was, that with such a large number of homes, the chances are there will potentially be children with quite high additional needs. Absolutely, and we have got the current numbers around ASN that Gerry’s provided and the Head Teacher of Bishopton provided, so we’ve got a sense of the numbers. They’re not huge and they wouldn’t be such that would cause us to have to make, I suppose, a separate provision, but they are certainly present enough that we have to be aware in our planning, and in the work that teachers do and support staff do, to make sure that the children have their needs met. But that’s an ongoing thing, we are actually going to have a separate meeting for parents with children with additional support needs, so that they can talk to us about any concerns they’re going to have. And we’ll have that fairly soon after this bit of the process. Okay, thank you. So, I realise what you said about how you’re not putting numbers on teachers or anything like that, and it’s very much around the school building and design, and everything. But, you know, what plans are there for teachers anyway in terms of, will they get some training for kids with additional needs? Or what, you know? Gerry Lyons: Louise Chisholm: Gerry Lyons: Louise Chisholm: Gerry Lyons: Louise Chisholm: Jack Clark: Gerry Lyons: So, there’s an ongoing, I think, challenge in Scottish education around additional support needs, and our teachers are having to cope with an increasing number of children with additional support needs of a wide variety, actually. And certainly, the Morgan Review, which looked at additional support needs-, one of the big things in the Morgan Review was the importance of workforce development, about supporting staff in schools so that they feel equipped to deal with the children that they have to deal with. And some of that can be very challenging, Maggie I know, has been
Page 146
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 involved in some challenges around that, and members talking about that. We have made massive strides in inclusion in Renfrewshire in the last two, three years in terms of building our Staged Intervention policy, and then wrapping support around that, and teacher training around that. We’re going to continue to do that and we will continue to grow our expertise and our understanding of all of that. To me, that’s right at the heart of our policies, that’s not a Dargavel issue, per se, that’s a Renfrewshire Council issue, and that’s an all children in Scotland issue. Janie O’Neill: Absolutely, that’s what I was going to say, it’s across Scotland and obviously any support and training for the staff would be the same support and training that’s available, or will be made available to all of our teaching staff in Renfrewshire. And it’s something that, as a profession, I think we’re reflecting on at the moment because of the, you know, focus that there has been and also what’s been coming back reported at a national level, as you’ll probably be aware. But absolutely, there have been huge strides made, and again, obviously Gerry and I are more recently involved in Renfrewshire’s provision but we’re well aware of the huge strides that have been made and which will continue to be made moving forward, supporting our ASN young people. And part of the planning, as Gerry said, for the second primary school in Dargavel will incorporate that, as it will with any other new build schools moving forward. Okay, thank you, Janie. Any other specific questions just now? I’ll start with the fun one then, the numbers, everyone loves the numbers. How do you feel you’ve got your predictions this time right, compared to the last time that was a complete and utter mess? Louise Chisholm: Gerry Lyons: Grant: Gerry Lyons: So, there are lots of bits to the answer to that question but all of them are equally important. One is, try not to make the same mistake twice, you know, we don’t want to find ourselves in the situation, we know the pain it has caused. You and I had a big chat about that the other night, the pain that was caused to the community by the last exercise and we’ve really looked closely at why that happened. We’ve been working with a consultancy called Edge Analytics and all the projections that we have for the new schools, and for primary provision in the area, have been developed by them using a model that they’ve used across the whole of Britain. So, what that’s giving us, is a range of numbers-, so they have their own model, which took us to 1,131. We then asked them to do the same exercise from a starting point of 140 in primary one and that took us to 1,300. And then we asked them to do that with the basis of 150 at the moment in primary one, and then used their model from that starting point, and that took us to 1,500. This is not a definitive position, that we know the number, we don’t know the number, but we believe that the number will sit somewhere between that 1,100 and that 1,500, but we are putting in plans if it gets to 1,500. So, if I can talk you through the numbers as they are at the moment, so you’ve got 434 in here, as a capacity. With the modular classrooms at the
Page 147
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 moment, I’m just looking at Gerry out of the corner of my eye, it’s 595 that you’ve got in the building at the moment. Gerry Carlton: We’ve got 595, yes. Gerry Lyons: So, we’ve got 595 children, we’ve got Bishopton Primary at the moment that can accommodate at a maximum 519, it’s not there yet but that’s the maximum that they can have. So, with the current provision, we can get to 1,100, which buys us the time to build the new school. August 2027 is a crucial point because at August 2027-, Gillian Hoyle: Sorry, can I ask a point on that? You’re saying that the total numbers are 1,500 roughly, is that inclusive of all the children going to Bishopton Primary and not just the two primary schools within Dargavel site? Or is that inclusive of all kids? Gerry Lyons: That’s the Dargavel children. Gillian Hoyle: So, that’s the Dargavel but then you’re looking at capacity of just Dargavel and Bishopton? Gerry Lyons: At the moment because that’s what we need to deliver into the new school’s build. Gillian Hoyle: But to look at the capacity we need to also look at the current capacity within Bishopton. Gerry Lyons: Yes. Gillian Hoyle: It’s all one village ultimately but the original village, the new village-, Gerry Lyons: The thing about Bishopton is, when the new school is built, it will go back. So, there are 100 in primary one just now, it will go back to 43 in primary one when the new school is built. Gillian Hoyle: I appreciate that, I’m just trying to make sure that the numbers don’t get mixed up again. Gerry Lyons: Completely get it, and anything that you say that helps not mess it up, we want to hear it. Gillian Hoyle: If you’re looking at three schools and one number, and two schools and another number, I think there might be a mess up somewhere. We need to look at those three across all areas. Gerry Lyons: No, because we’re not looking at three schools at any point in terms of what I’ve just said. The interim position is, the position between now and August 2027, that has to take in Dargavel Primary-, Gillian Hoyle: And that’s what you’re anticipating the 1,500? Gerry Lyons: No, no, that’s what it takes to, August 2027, which is a maximum of 1,000 between the two schools. Gillian Hoyle: Okay.
Page 148
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gerry Lyons: When you build the new school, the calculation is done on the basis of a new school of 800 and this school at 434. We could stretch it to 500 but that’s using every space, and using every nook and cranny, so we prefer not to. So, at that point, Bishopton isn’t part of the projections, it’s a separate projection for Bishopton Primary. You then have a situation where between that 800 school and this school, you could potentially accommodate the 1,300. However, if it goes to 1,500 we have the option of extending this school so that we can accommodate 1,500 between the two Dargavel Primary schools. We think that between the two Dargavel Primary schools we have planned we can meet the numbers that are projected but we have plans, and if the plans go beyond 1,500, and we’ve got no indication that they will, then Bishopton Primary still provides additional capacity for us if we need it. So, the difference I think, is two-fold, one is, the projections are more detailed, two is, there’s a plan B, there’s a plan C, as opposed to, ‘Oh my God, what are we going to do now (Timecode: 00:30:00)?’ Which was, kind of, the last time. The other part of this which is really important is projections, inevitably the longer time goes on, become less reliable. You’ll know that, so the other part of this is that we are also monitoring the live data, so we’re monitoring the number of children in the schools every year and we’re going to do that, we think twice a year, there’s still a bit of discussion around that. But it feels to me that the right way of doing that is after census, so we take a census of all schools in Scotland in September, and that tells us how many children are actually in a building, it also tells us how many staff are in the building. We then have the enrolment process, which happens between January and March-ish, depending on the sector, and we will take the figures again, and that will tell us who looks as though they’re coming, and we will measure that against the projections. That will allow us to make decisions if we think it’s starting to look more than we thought, or indeed less than we thought, so we think we’ve covered much more. Okay, George. George Morrison: What are the current combined school rolls for Bishopton and Dargavel at the moment, and what’s the current capacity for the two schools? Gerry Lyons: At the moment, you’ve got 595 in here, and 450-ish in Bishopton. George Morrison: Sorry, is that the occupancy? Gerry Lyons: That’s the occupancy, we committed to Bishopton Primary that we wouldn’t take them above 519 and we’ve got the 595 here. We can extend that a bit, via, if we get the work done on the acoustics in here, we could potentially add in another modular classroom which would give us another 25. George Morrison: Right, asking the question I was really meaning to ask then is, you don’t anticipate within the next three and a half years that the existing capacity is going to get breached? Gerry Lyons: No, 2027 is the time, George, if we don’t have the new builds up by 2027, we’ve got an issue because the statutory requirement on us is, that we meet the needs of all catchment children. And that means, they either go into
Page 149
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 their catchment school, which is where we will end up, but if they don’t get into their catchment school they get offered the nearest available school. Up until August 2027, that is Bishopton Primary, beyond August 2027 you go beyond Bishopton Primary, you start to bring in Rashielea Primary as another one. So, we don’t want to get to that stage, that’s why August 2027 is so important. George Morrison: It’s a bit of an off the wall question, but in terms of making the projections, presumably you’ve had to take account of housebuilding rates and occupancy. How confident are you about the (inaudible) speed of housebuilding and occupancy? Gerry Lyons: So, there are people here who know more about housebuilding and occupancy than I do but in terms of-, all our projections are based on the final figure which is 4,322 houses in this area and the projection model used by Edge Analytics, which has now been mirrored by our own team, takes in number of houses, number of children per house on a formula, NHS data, you know, migration into the local area, that kind of thing. So, it’s very extensive, David, I don’t know if you’ve got anything you would add to that. David Love: Yes, I mean, I think the other thing to think about is just the rate of housebuilding, so ultimately that will be continually monitored to ensure that we are having a live data account of the occupancy of these units that are coming forward. The market might change, if the economy changes, you know, the housebuilding might slow down, it might speed up, so it’s about making sure that we continually monitor that on a live basis to ensure that we know what’s coming forward and what’s being occupied. Janie O’Neill: (Talking over each other) Laura Miller: Oh sorry, do you want to-, Janie O’Neill: No, on you go. Laura Miller: Because that obviously didn’t happen before, I’ve lived in Dargavel village now for over ten years, and when we were sold our house we were told, ‘This is going to be an area with 2,500 houses,’ now, it’s up to, you know, what you said, 4,322 houses. I mean, is that the maximum? Because at the end of the day, I can’t see it being the maximum because there’s so much space here that, you know, more houses could be built and more houses could be built. You know, we pay such a high rate of Council tax that when a plan-, you know, I don’t know how it all works but if plans go in and it’s like, ‘Okay, we’re going to get X amount of extra houses, this is X amount of Council tax a year,’ no brainer. It’s frustrating when we’re sitting here and I’m trying not to get angry about it, but this is our kids, and when you’re sitting here thinking that, ‘We think that this will sit somewhere between 1,100 and 1,500 kids. August 2027’s a crucial point, if there are more than 1,500 then Bishopton Primary have additional capacity.’ Like, my view of that is, that’s unacceptable, we can’t have kids from Dargavel coming here, coming to the new school and actually if they don’t get in to either of those schools, they go to Bishopton. Or actually, if they don’t even get into that school they go
Page 150
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 to Rashielea, like, we can’t even get to that stage, that shouldn’t even be on the radar. Gerry Lyons: No, I completely agree with you and it’s actually not on the radar. Laura Miller: Right. Gerry Lyons: The radar doesn’t go much beyond 1,500 because that’s a what a projection has given us as the very, very maximum. Now, Edge Analytics and ourselves believe that the number will be less than that, we are pretty confident about that but what we can’t do, and I understand your anger, and your anger’s perfectly justifiable, but what we cannot do-, I will come in, in a minute, I’m honestly not ignoring you. What we cannot do is take a position of, in any eventuality, us not knowing what to do. So, all I’m trying to show you there is not what we think will happen-, if you say to me, what do I think will happen, I think Dargavel village will be served by two primary schools, and those two primary schools will accommodate all the children that live in the village, I believe that’s what will happen. That’s what the basis of this proposal is but it’s incumbent on us to learn from the last experience, so that we’re saying, ‘So, if not, and it gets to that, do we have a plan?’ ‘Yes, we do.’ ‘And if, despite everything telling us it’s not the case, it goes beyond that, what then?’ So, all I’m trying to do is give you comfort, which is, we’re going into every single possible scenario but we’re planning on the scenario which we think is the one that will come through, which is the two primary schools meet the requirement. Laura Miller: And I appreciate that, and I know that you have to have things in place for eventualities, if, you know, things don’t happen. But I think my concern is, are the-, you know, you’re talking about roll projections, does that take into account the fact that, potentially in the future, there could be more than 4,322 houses built? I don’t know. Gerry Lyons: So, I’m going to led David answer that, that’s a planning issue. David Love: Yes, so there are 4,200 houses consented as we currently sit, you know, ultimately the developer can’t exceed that without coming to the Council for further planning consent. So, if they come to the Council for further planning consent, at that time that’s when the consideration is then, you know, ‘Do you give them permission, and if you were to give them permission, what is the impact?’ So, ultimately, we’d be going to our education colleagues to say, you know, ‘Here’s another proposal, how do we deal with that? Is there capacity? What is the mitigation? Should that be, you know, even considered?’ Laura Miller: Okay, so there’s a possibility that it could be exceeded but that all needs to be signed off, like, within-, David Love: That’s all subject to further consent. Gerry Lyons: That further consent is informed by a conversation about education provision. David Love: Yes.
Page 151
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gerry Lyons: Because you can’t just keep loading and loading and you don’t have any schools. David Love: Yes. Laura Miller: No, of course, we’re in a worse position than we are just now, yes. Gerry Lyons: Absolutely but at the moment, everything we believe is that we’re going to be dealing with 4,322 houses. David Love: That’s what they’ve got consent for at the moment. Gillian Hoyle: Is that the BAE’s consent? David Love: Yes, that’s the BAE’s consent, so that’s the planning consent and there’s nothing-, Gillian Hoyle: Just now. David Love: Yes, there’s nothing to indicate that that’s-, That’s not the house builders that have committed to X amount of houses on a plot of land, that is BAE’s consent for this wider development? No, that’s what BAE have in terms of their overall master plan. Yes, the overall master plan (talking over each other). I just want to be sure on that. Okay, very patiently. The reassurance is good but bear in mind consent was given 4,200 without the infrastructure being there to support it, that’s how there’s some nervousness in the community about the process. I know, do you know, I was thinking there, George, particularly your question. I think it’s really important, and Gerry’s tried to highlight it, is that, see the last time round, a number was projected and there was a steadfast refusal to go back and look at the number again, irrespective of people like yourself, David, continually asking for it to be revisited, and that was the massive error. The key difference this time is that this will be reviewed continually, and every time we review it, and we’ve got an updated position, we’ll share it. So, that’s the key change, the whole ethos is different. What is the current Dargavel generated number of children? That’s the effect of this school and-, sorry. No, it’s okay, David, on you go, it’s fine. Because there are 2,000 houses still to be built, which is equivalent to 500 kids at the current rate. Has that been built in? Yes, so the current rate is about 800, another 500 will take you up closer to that 1,300 that we think is the optimum figure. Yes? Gillian Hoyle: David Love: LauraMiller: Gerry Lyons: George Morrison: Louisa Mahon: David: Gerry Lyons: David: Gerry Lyons: Jack Clark: Yes, so, I’ve got a couple of points I want to make. The first one, just following on from the point about, sort of, roll numbers and things like that
Page 152
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 is, that you said that it will be between 1,100 and 1,500, so you’re projecting for it. But that’s still quite a big disparity in terms of pupil numbers, I mean, if I take the primary school that I went to, you know, 400 pupils is four times the size of the whole school that I went to. So, it’s a big number of kids, and I was just wondering what provisions were in place in terms of individual class sizes, to try and keep them around, sort of, 30 and under (Timecode: 00:40:00) pupils, and about teacher numbers and things? What plans are in place and what were you thinking of doing with that? The other thing, just around a similar, sort of, theme is, you’ve got this methodology for projecting how many kids are going to be in the school and that, and you’ll take your high, low, median. Is there enough confidence for that for going into other schools? I realise it’s a bit tangential but about projecting that and if there are schools in future going to be built, or in new estates like where I stay, in Paisley, we’ve got the Hawkhead village that’s just been built and-, Gerry Lyons: It’s actually not tangential, I’ll take that point first if that’s okay, because we are now in a place, in Renfrewshire Council, where we’re looking at the whole learning estate. In one of the exercises which is just about to be shared with us, Edge Analytics have done projected rolls for all of the schools in Renfrewshire Council, so that we can see, you know, how it all fits together, what the numbers are coming forward, and that will inform planning, which Janie will be very much leading, in terms of the learning estate, with all the colleagues round this table. So, that’s not just primary, that’s primary and secondary to inform learning estate planning, so that’s not a tangential point. Jack Clark: Is, or will that data be available for-, Gerry Lyons: Yes, absolutely, to go back to your first point, class sizes have statutory limits associated with them. So, primary one is a maximum of 25, primary two to four is 30, and primary five to seven is a maximum of 33. Again, we would be at the very top end of the occupation of the school if we were getting to numbers like 33, but those are the, kind of, statutory maximums. The schools will not open full, so they won’t be at those maximums but again, they will be decisions made by the Head Teachers of the school, who, for example, might decide to make a class where the children are blending and working really well together a bit bigger, to enable them to make a class where the children have a few more challenges a bit smaller. We leave that with the Head Teacher of the school to decide. Janie O’Neill: (Talking over each other) around that, obviously. That’s the decisions that would be made by the teachers, yes. Gerry Lyons: Their knowledge of the children. Jack Clark: Because it all affects, like, hiring decisions for hiring the actual teachers as well. You know, you can’t go in expecting you’re going to get, for talking’s sake, 1,500 pupils, and planning for that, and then you only get 1,200 actually. In that case, then you’ve got to lay off some teachers. Gerry Lyons: So, all staffing decisions are made on what we call, ‘per capita,’ per child, so based on the number of children in the school we will have a staffing
Page 153
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 complement. One of the things that’s come back to us from the staff is, how early will we make decisions about, you know, ‘What is the number of staff in the school? How will we recruit? How will we manage that for staff?’ So, that’s been feedback in the consultation from the staff in the two schools and that will be something that we’ll factor in to our discussions. It will be a combination of things, it will be a combination of staff who may be surplus around the school, a consideration of giving people the opportunity to move, which they did in Glasgow. They built a new school in Glasgow and every school that lost children, the staff were given the opportunity to move to the new school. And then there will be recruitment in that as well and probationer opportunities. So, it’s further down the line, as you can image but there’s a fairly well-established process for recruiting staff to any new school and we’ll follow it. Gillian Hoyle: Regarding the numbers, and just jumping back to Bishopton and Dargavel, well Bishopton, because it’s one village ultimately, Dargavel’s just a different area. Can I recommend that you don’t just look at Dargavel’s side in isolation and that you do look at Bishopton? The demographic of Bishopton has changed dramatically, Mr Woodrow, you’ve been here a long time, I have as well, I grew up in this village, when I was a child this was classed an old person’s village. It is not that anymore, it is young, it is a young person’s village. It needs to be taken into consideration. David: That’s one of the areas that we feel-, the amount of modernisation to houses-, the bulk of the village came in the 50s and 60s, and I make a fairly brutal comment that they all have now gone out in boxes leaving houses, good two or three-bedroom houses, solid houses, on the market. Folk come in and look at the houses-, Gerry Lyons: That’s across the village, David? David: Across the village and that’s where Bishopton Primary’s roll is going to be different from what it is now. Gillian Hoyle: Exactly, and I think if you’re only considering Dargavel and not looking at Bishopton, and you think there’s this gap in capacity that can be filled by Bishopton, we could end up in the same situation again. Gerry Lyons: Yes, we have projections for Bishopton as part of the wider learning estate planning, so we’ve got that, so you don’t need to think that we’re ignoring Bishopton, we’re not. The only point I’m making about Bishopton is the fact that it’s involved at the moment, and when does it stop being involved? It’s a really interesting point about the changing-, Gillian Hoyle: It’s never going to be, it’s not going to stop being involved. Bishopton as a whole has changed, you put an M8 junction in, it’s now a commuter village for people to get up to Glasgow really quickly. So, young couples and families moved to the area instead of what was an older person’s village, where they were commuting, or, which was the original, sort of, demographic, were the people who were coming and working in this ROF factory. So, its demographically split fundamentally changed. Various voices confirm that ROF is Royal Ordnance Factory.
Page 154
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gerry Lyons: Is that the bombs? Gillian Hoyle: Yes, well, it was. ROF, sorry, yes, well, it was. Various voices state that it was rockets. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, it was ammunition. Gerry Lyons: So, it was the people who worked in that factory that (talking over each other.) Gillian Hoyle: A lot of the houses that were built in the original village were built to house people that were working in the factory. Gerry Lyons: Okay, so there are a couple of things about that, one is, 43 will be the number in primary one in Bishopton once the new Dargavel is built. It has capacity for double that without the school even needing to be have any consideration of extending. It’s not out of the question to extend it, as well, so we will keep Bishopton under review as part of the wider learning estate, I suspect that won’t be my issue but it will certainly be Janie’s. But it’s really helpful for us to hear that because you understand this community better than I do, you understand it much better than I do. What’s the current primary one in Bishopton? It’s 100. And that’s because of here? Yes. David: Gerry Carlton: David: Gerry Carlton: David: 75 off 100. You’ve got 100 going to Bishopton at the moment, 103 or something. Gerry Carlton: David: 103, but I still think you’re going to be having a problem if you’re classing 43 as the end product. Gerry Lyons: Yes, but remember, it’s 43 at the moment, if it goes beyond that, it can go beyond that by quite a significant number within the current building without any issues. Janie O’Neill: I was just going to say that’s the first time I’ve heard anyone speak of the fact that things have changed so much, because part of the original, horrible, sort of, thing that went wrong was that people looked at a comparison to an old, established town, and a brand new town. It’s the first time I’ve heard anyone say, ‘But that’s changed now,’ because this all happened twenty years ago, obviously. Laura Miller: They used the numbers of the original village which was an old-, no offence to anyone but it was an old person’s village, I grew up here, it was an old person’s village. They looked at you funny when you were doing things as a kid. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, but it’s all different you see, now. Various voices talk over each other and laugh.
Page 155
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Laura Miller: That sounded a lot more dodgy than it was meant to sound but really, anything I did my mum knew about. Gerry Lyons: That’s a childhood memory that’s not gone away. Laura Miller: But it is a different village now. Janie O’Neill: So it’s changed so-, because that was obviously 20 years ago. Gillian Hoyle: But the numbers they used to project the school at that point in time were based off of the original old village. (Talking over each other) people coming to a commuter town. David: And Braehead flats. Janie O’Neill: Very interesting. David: It was one child in every seven houses, is what the original projection was, and if you kept the number that ended up there, your 342 divides-, 2,300 by 7, you get 342. Could we persuade them that that was wrong? We tried, we tried. Gillian Hoyle: Numerous, numerous. Janie O’Neill: Thankfully, it’s a completely distant team of people. Gerry Lyons: Yes, and I think David makes a really important point though, and I think it’s the point that Louisa made, people like David raised issues, questioned the numbers broadly, brought new numbers to the table, and every time they did, we just left them. We took them and went like that, ‘Not right.’ David: Corporate arrogance. Gerry Lyons: We’re not doing that this time, he loves that phrase, how many times has that man used that phrase to me? David: As many times as I’ve had a letter from Renfrewshire Council. I’m sorry, and the other thing that we’ve got to get our heads round, and you folk all have to get round, the secondary provision is going down the same way. They’ve got it wrong at the moment and they’re going to get it wrong until it comes to, ‘Oh dear, we’ve reached 2,000.’ How are you going to tell folk who live in Erskine, ‘Oh, your kids are going to have to go to the Renfrew school,’? So, that’s another subject. Gerry Lyons: I’m going to come back to that, it is another subject and it’s a subject that we’re going to engage with the community about because it’s really, really important. Just to pick up the issue about the changed nature, one of the things that we want out of this process is a better understanding of that. See what we’ve got up there around thoughts, ideas (Timecode: 00:50:00) and, you know, Peter in his advice to us, one of the things he said to us is, ‘You need to understand the lived experience of people in Dargavel village and more widely in Bishopton village,’ and I know you’re not separating the two. Gillian Hoyle: It bugs me that people do.
Page 156
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gerry Lyons: So, listening to that from you is really, really important because I need to understand that, we all need to understand that because one of the other conversations we might be having at some point, not just now, is, ‘What do our teenagers do?’ David: Oh yes. Gerry Lyons: What do they do? Not just now, David, was the phrase (various laughing and talking over each other), did you not hear that bit of it? Gillian Hoyle: The Residents Association and the Community Council have proposed numerous things, my husband’s on the Residents Association and he has proposed numerous things which have been vetoed, ignored, shoved in the bin, to be honest. (Talking over each other) I know you were in that too. Gerry Lyons: So, there’s lots of conflict but that changing nature of this community is a really important part of this and I don’t live here, so I need you to tell me that. David’s consistently telling me it. Janie O’Neill: Sorry, Gerry, the community facilities that are going to come through as well, should be helpful in that regard, at least in terms of how we can ensure that they’re a benefit. The schools obviously, primarily, the learning estate, that’s key but as a community resource really, the drawbridge has got to be down, the doors are open, it’s got to be there for everybody. Of course, an important demographic will be teenagers as it changes again but what you’re saying there about how it’s changed over the last period of time, we’ve gone from being, you know, an older persons’, residents’ area, to now a younger families’ and so on-, ten years from now-, I’m thinking about that myself, just having moved into a new estate and then my daughter’s now just about to turn eighteen, we moved in when she was six, it’s very different-, the needs, you know, so I totally understand, thinking ahead and how things have changed. We’ve got to be on the front foot for that, that’s what’s important, just, you know, what you’re saying, and learning from, as you rightly say, Gerry, people like yourself and obviously from David as well. We want to do that, that’s what, obviously, tonight’s about as well, is getting that information-, Gillian Hoyle: Tonight’s obviously about the primary school but it needs to be taken into consideration because right now if you look at the example in Glasgow recently, where children vandalised a playpark that was recently built and absolutely destroyed it. Ultimately, they’ve done that because they didn’t have anything to do in the local area, so I know that the focus has to be on the primary school but there are wider considerations because ultimately, those teenagers are going to come, unfortunately, into schools like this and vandalise it and that’s what we do not want to happen. Gerry Lyons: Well, there are a couple of things about that. I mean, I think it’s a valid point and we don’t want young people to be bored and then take out that boredom in damaging-, I’m sure Gerry’s hugely comforted about prospect of marauding teenagers. David: It’s all happening in Bishopton.
Page 157
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gillian Hoyle: I’m trying to protect the school. Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Lyons: It’s not happening here, it’s not happening here (talking over each other) if she was here you wouldn’t say that. Janie O’Neill: I’m just going to note these things actually up, so we can take them (inaudible) David: I know that there is vandalism at Bishopton Primary and it’s not just local, it comes from elsewhere. Gillian Hoyle: There always was. David: But you don’t have issues here. Gerry Lyons: Can I also pick up something from my experience of working in Glasgow? So, I worked in the east end of Glasgow, taking in Easterhouse, Cranhill and there were significant issues with gang violence in those areas over a period of time. And one of the things that made that better was good activities for teenage children to do, diversionary activity. Gillian Hoyle: Exactly, and that’s why I’m saying there needs to be some consideration into that. Gerry Lyons: So, I think we’re very much aware of that, I think that’s a really good part of the conversation and we’ll keep it live in the conversation to make sure that we don’t create those issues. But maybe a bit more than that, that we do the best we can for our teenagers, that’s part of this. David: A big step forward would be to get the funding to put into the development trust so they can actually get the playing fields that were meant to happen here, which money was taken out-, BAE said, ‘Fine, take it, stop RMG having power over the playing fields, leave it to the community.’ And then it got transferred but no money got transferred and BAE’s making (inaudible) of it. Gerry Lyons: Okay, thank you for that. David: But that’s one for Renfrewshire Council. Gerry Lyons: No, that’s part of the conversation, that is absolutely part of the conversation. Okay, sorry, I do apologise. Listen, I’ve been a teacher all my life, I still can’t spot a hand when it’s up, it’s absolutely ridiculous. Grant: No, it’s okay, it’s fine. Some people have put the points already, so I’ll try not to mention too much because obviously-, Gerry Lyons: No, no (talking over each other) Grant: I’m from Erskine originally, so the high schooling-, Park Mains was my high school, I was the last year at the old school before it got knocked down, my sister moved into the new school, so, before all the new, fancy facilities. Gerry Lyons: (Talking over each other)
Page 158
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Grant: No, I did have a good experience in my sixth year but I don’t want to go into the full projection, I know there’s bits going through but obviously the main bit, the main crux from before-, obviously, you know, the stuff we’ve been pushing for. I know people across different areas have been complaining about the ideas and numbers, I know even, people were worried about Park Mains when the new school got built. There was a question, because capacity was slightly less, I believe, than the previous one that was there. I don’t know if it was a better school or not, I’m not going to say the issue of having it, but is there going to be a case now along with all these projections-, I know obviously there’s a lot more data analytics going on there but is there now more consideration to put in more listening to people that are actually on the ground doing it, rather than just sitting and going, ‘The computer says I fit 12,000 people, that’s it’? Gerry Lyons: Aye, no, I mean, I think, you know that way when you’re looking over the independent reports and the feedback you’ve had from independent organisations, then you sit and talk to David, you talk to parents, you talk to the Parent Councils, the recurring message is, ‘We told you things and you didn’t pay attention. We told you things and you discounted them. We told you things and you put them in the bin.’ We do not want anyone saying that about Renfrewshire Council, so we’re in a position just now where we’ve got this proposal on the primary school, but it’s much bigger than that. It’s the start of a more, I think, exciting approach to community engagement, a more engaged Council, I believe, a more engaged group of services, because all these guys round here have all been very clear, ‘We want to know about this, we want to get it right.’ So, we will finish the consultation and it will be what it will be, it will not be the end of the process, we will keep coming back to you with our progress, we’ll keep coming back to you with what we think the numbers are looking like, and we will invite you openly to tell us what you’re finding, what you’re thinking. And all of that will be meshed together so that we continue to plan effectively to meet the needs both of the children, the families and the community. But we can’t do that ourselves and we don’t want to do it ourselves. We believe that the figures we’re getting are right but if David comes along and says, ‘Gerry, I’m telling you, there’s a hell of a lot more kids appearing in that village than we thought,’ we’re not going to say, ‘No luck, David, the computer said it’s not that.’ We won’t do that. David: Unfortunately, Bishopton at the moment, is very reticent to give out information to the community. Gerry Lyons: Yes, okay, I’m just going to listen to that (inaudible). David: We’ve got a Freedom of Information in-, Gerry Lyons: I know that. Gillian Hoyle: There have been multiple Freedom of Information requests and all of those have either been denied or ignored. David: And that’s since the Bowles Report which said, ‘You have to get-,
Page 159
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gillian Hoyle: Yes, my husband’s put in multiple, David’s put in multiple as well and they have been ignored, so-, Gerry Lyons: Okay, the FOI process is run separately, I don’t even-, the one thing we didn’t bring was anybody to do with the FOI process but to some extent that’s you asking us for things, what I’m talking about here is you giving us things that we can work with, it’s a different thing. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, it just needs to be both ways, I do agree with the way that you’re going about things from an analytics point of view, it sounds like the right approach but we need to be able to see the outcomes of that approach. So, for example, the David Bowles report and the Edge Analytics data suggested certain numbers, that was prior to my son going into P1, those numbers you’ve taken into account. But prior to you guys doing this they were not getting taken into account. Gerry Lyons: But they weren’t beforehand, okay. Gillian Hoyle: I’m just using that as an example. Gerry Lyons: No, I know what you’re saying. Gillian Hoyle: I’m saying, we need to see that coming back from you guys, ‘Right okay, we’ve taken that on board, this is what our projection was, this is what the number is now,’ so that we can see what’s happening. Gerry Lyons: In a way, that’s about engagement throughout the whole process, isn’t it? Gillian Hoyle: Into the future. Gerry Lyons: Aye, okay, listen, I don’t think-, Gillian Hoyle: Each of your six monthly state points where you’re saying you’re going to review the numbers, it’s just about putting it up on your website so people can see it. Gerry Lyons: Just come back and tell us, aye, no, absolutely. Gillian Hoyle: You don’t need to do much more than put it up and let us see it. Gerry Lyons: We fully intend that, and again, that’s just really helpful feedback in terms of, ‘Do this properly,’ and we will certainly do that. Janie O’Neill: Louisa has made a note of all the things we’re talking about, so we’ll (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Louisa’s writing like billy-oh over there, and obviously we’re getting a transcription of this so we pick up everything, because that’s what we want to do, so that’s really helpful, thank you. David: There’s been far better engagement with the community in the last month than there was throughout the whole of the run up to the debacle. Gerry Lyons: Well, I think our colleagues will be pleased to hear that. David: It was a debacle.
Page 160
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Various voices talk over each other. David: You haven’t responded to David’s point yet. Gerry Lyons: Haven’t responded to what? David: John McIntosh’s invitation. Various voices talk over each other. Gerry Lyons: Excuse me, did you get that? Louise Mahon: What would help ongoing? I know you’ve mentioned the sharing of the data at every review point, but in terms of maintaining this level of engagement, what would be most helpful? David: Your education committee not being railroaded by (Timecode: 01:00:00) the politicians. Laura Miller: Children’s policy boards, the children’s services policy boards. David: Yes, policy board, there’s been-, Gillian Hoyle: I think that was a frustration across everybody, the situation became very political and what happened was two sides were basically fighting over Dargavel Primary, and ultimately that’s why people ended up going to the press because they got sick to death of us-, our kids becoming a pawn in a political game. Gerry Lyons: See when you say two sides, is that two political-, Gillian Hoyle: Political parties, yes, watch back some of those historical sessions, they were eye opening, frightening, scary, disheartening. David: I sat through the full committee meeting where virtually every Councillor in that room ate humble pie and then in the very next school board meeting it was back to the same old game. And you guys as officers, notice there aren’t any elected members here. Oh, my apologies, yes you did speak to me at that meeting, my apologies. Gerry Lyons: I had a meeting with all the elected members-, David: They’ve just got to get their act together and get it sorted out. Gillian Hoyle: They need to stop putting it in this political hotcake and trying to win points over our kids. They’re losing the respect of the village as a result. Gerry Lyons: I think holding on to that principle of getting the best for the children and young people is really worth doing, and certainly everything that we’re going to be taking to the board will come from that position. So, we will certainly make that point strongly. Janie O’Neill: We want to keep them at the centre. Gerry Lyons: Keep the children at the centre, keep the community at the centre and that gives us the best chance of getting it right, but any ideas you can give Louisa for the ongoing engagement, we would really appreciate that. You don’t
Page 161
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 have to come up with it tonight, if you want to drop an email to me then by all means do that, and we will look at what’s feasible, you know. Once, I mean, David, you’ll be glad to know, now I’ve got my house in Dargavel (talking over each other)-, David: You’re joking! (Laughter) Gillian Hoyle: You wouldn’t dare. Janie O’Neill: I was having a look on my way in, I was like, ‘There are some nice properties around here, (talking over each other) much of a commute.’ Gerry Lyons: Once you see me sitting outside Sainsbury’s with a table you’ll be able to get hold of me. But that ongoing engagement’s really, really important. Gillian Hoyle: It is. Gerry Lyons: But you can help us design that, so help us design it. Gillian Hoyle: It’s how you’ll changed the mindset of this village. Gerry Lyons: Aye, okay, listen, we know it’s not going to take a couple of meetings and one consultation, (talking over each other) building community trust is-, Louisa Mahon: There are obviously a lot of topics outwith the proposal we’re consulting on tonight but I think it’s important we capture those, and that’s what we come back and speak to you about again. It’s not losing sight of the fact that there are other concerns and issues that we need to be chatting to you about regularly and working closely on. David: I’ve made the point about the funding for the development trust to actually do something. Oh sorry, my apologies. Louisa Mahon: Community development trust. Gillian Hoyle: So, if you’re looking at engagement within the community, there are already Residents Associations, there’s Bishopton Community Council. Very rarely is the Council actually able to attend those sessions, being able to attend those-, not every time, I know they’re quite frequent, I know how often my husband has to go to them. You don’t need to attend them all the time but being able to feed back into those sessions from time to time, I don’t think is a bad thing. Gerry Lyons: Yes, great, no, not at all. David: Gerry’s at the next Community Council. Gillian Hoyle: Oh, are you? David: The formal-, Gillian Hoyle: He didn’t show me in his invite, he was going through them all, he said, ‘There’s nobody from the Council.’ David: The formal consultation polity doesn’t know because the agenda’s not out yet because we’ve got another consultation on the same night, so we’ll be second.
Page 162
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 So, use existing forums more effectively. Yes, the forums are there, they just-, and maybe we’re not making best use of the forums ourselves but there are opportunities. That would be appreciated. Good shout, yes, good shout, okay. And that’s to you, Louisa? Yes please. Okay. Is that okay? Okay, any other points that people want to raise, or anything you would like to hear more about? Yes, tell me about the design process and how the community will be kept informed of how the design is developing. I could take that, we discussed this last Wednesday. The design process follows quite a-, it’s quite a rigid process itself, it goes through-, they’re called RIBA stages, architectural stages. Right now, we are at the point where we’re trying to appoint a consultant. So, consultant architects, consultant engineers, we’re appointing them to try and get ahead of the game, obviously, so that when we do have the consultation process complete we are ready to start on a design. So, right now there isn’t a design as such because we don’t have a site. The design process as you see from the timeline up there, we’re saying that we will be on site for, I think, June, approximately 2025 and we’ll be finished by August ’27. I can’t see that far. So, that’s construction commencing June ’25? June ’25, yes. And that’s based on the proposed plot that you have just now and not a different plot, I assume? That’s based on something as a starting point, yes. July ’25, sorry. Then July ’25 to August ’27 is the construction but there are design processes before that. So, the process of-, How will the community be kept informed of what is planned to be built or proposed to be built? Well, essentially, it would be similar to this I would imagine, it would be something we discuss with the client, which is education, Children’s Services, they would come to us and say, ‘We want to have, maybe, presentation sessions with boards, this is what we’re proposing.’ Louisa Mahon: Gillian Hoyle: Louisa Mahon: Gerry Lyons: David: Louisa Mahon: David: Gerry Lyons: George Morrison: Frank Farrell: George Morrison: Frank Farrell: Gillian Hoyle: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: George Morrison: Frank Farrell: Chris Dalrymple: It’s the same answer to that last point that you made, how do we feed back to the community? So, Community Council, separate forums, I think we need to have a conversation about what the right forums are, where you want to
Page 163
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 hear from us, where you want presence from us. Those types of forums we can absolutely bring back design as it progresses. Gerry Lyons: One of the questions that we asked about in terms of what we’re looking for from an architect, ‘Is an architect just prepared to come along and talk to the community about their proposals, the designs and how it’s all going to fit together?’ So, we will keep that process going, so that you know when we move from what effectively is concept planning at the moment, to more detailed design planning and what that looks like, and that’s something that we can just get feedback from you on the best way to share that. Would that be a, kind of, open evening or, you know, actual-, I’ve not got the answer to that but I’m happy for you to give me the answer and I’ll make sure that all my colleagues here know about it, for you. Chris Dalrymple: Designers we look at, obviously, one of the questions we put to them, they have to experience in building-, obviously not building schools but engagement process, and understand the engagement process, the consultation process, and that was quite high on the questions we set. So, we don’t propose to bring every single consultant to meetings, that’s not going to help, but the lead consultant, the designer, is who is probably most appropriate and the best one to actually discuss any specific questions, queries. They would bring these, sort of, designs to these sessions. George Morrison: You’ll be doing it through Hub West, have you actually appointed firms yet? Have they been appointed yet? Chris Dalrymple: No, the Hub West process, you come to a financial close, so you can actually have interviews with your potential design team, get that set up, and then use Hub West. So, we are still a bit away from that and hopefully the consultation process will be finished before we actually start physically designing. George Morrison: My past experience when I was employed was dealing with design teams in the public sector, etc, and my experience has always been, you need to keep close tabs on them because they doing what they like to do, what they think is good, and there’s quite a communication chain, a lengthy chain between the community, education, yourself, back to the architects. The longer the chain is the harder it is to keep the people in the community informed of what’s going on. I’ve experienced that myself and I know from experience that architects, they’ve got their own concepts, their own ideas and you need to keep on top of them to try and make sure what they’re designing is what you really want rather than what they think would be a good idea. We’ve not had that many problems dealing with architects in the past, designers. Lucky you. Chris Dalrymple: George Morrison: Chris Dalrymple: Well, I think it depends what project it’s been on but for schools we’ve got quite a good track record within Renfrewshire Council. I know obviously people are going to talk about the school and the issues with that but we try and ensure that when we’re building, designing a school, it’s designed around what has been, obviously, identified by the client and what is-, not so
Page 164
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 much this, this is probably quite a new process for new build schools but the design process is essential. We’ve got a team of engineers, architects, project managers, in house, a small team but we manage these jobs through-, and we have to get a consultant project manager, a consultant designer to oversee, that’s what we do. To be fair, my experience of Hub is, they were a bit easier to manage and influence, I go away back to the days of PFI and they were a lot harder to actually control and influence. You got what you were getting rather than what you wanted. Hub West want to work with us on this job. Hub’s better, yes, it’s a long-term partnership arrangement. We have done a great deal of new build schools with Hub West in the last ten years, so we are basically-, I’m not saying dictating, but directing them on what we want, and we’ll take information from this and we’ll feed that back to them. The best people to ask are the two sitting here, they have the experience, basically, of the current designed school, learning from what’s here for Dargavel and making it better for the new one. You guys know what works and what doesn’t. And they’ve done that, so Space Zero, they spoke to myself and Louise and they’ve also met with a group of staff. And you’ll see, if you read the pupil consultation (Timecode: 01:10:00), when we asked them to give us their views on the new school, they went straight for the design and it’s the open plan design. When we walked into this school, it was, like, ‘Wow, this is amazing,’ but then after a few weeks and a few months you think, ‘This is quite noisy.’ And the open plan works well, it’s got its benefits but it doesn’t suit everyone, and that’s the biggest thing that we want them to take away. I think what Gerry’s mentioned there about open plan, from my day and probably a lot of people here, cellular classrooms were the way everybody was taught, then it moved into a, sort of, cellular/open plan, and there seems to be a possibility that people want to go back into the cellular. It’s having that possibility, and I think there’s that as well. Various voices talking over each other. A flexibility, I’ve had some good feedback about the use of partitions and stuff like that, so that’s really helpful. George Morrison: Chris Dalrymple: George Morrison: Chris Dalrymple: Gillian Hoyle: Gerry Carlton: Frank Farrell: Gillian Hoyle: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: That’s what I’m saying, that’s the kind of things we’ll take from Gerry, and not just this school but all schools as well, and we always do that, there are always lessons learned from feedback. There are going to be new, sort of, standards that education will say, ‘We want something changed, this is what we would require in terms of breakout areas,’ and that’s what we’ve tried to develop and evolve designs.
Page 165
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Gerry Lyons: Okay, any other questions? I do, I actually have a question that I’m going to ask of the community people and the parents that are here, which is, it doesn’t take a, you know, genius to work out that there are not that many parents here. So, we had two sessions last week with small numbers of parents attending, we’ve had tonight where we’d hoped to see a, you know, really good number. The drop-in sessions we had, the numbers were fine, we had good conversations but they weren’t big numbers. What can we do differently, or what should we be doing that we’re not already doing to hear from a bigger number of people get people along to these events so that we could hear from the whole community? Can you give me a steer on that? Gillian Hoyle: It’s difficult because you’re being tarred with what happened a year ago. All of these people came to sessions, myself included, and sat in here, and listened to us being lied to, us being told we’re liars, us being told numerous different things by certain members of the group. And people are not happy about it and do not want to have to sit here and listen to it again. There was one woman in one of our sessions who burst into tears because she was physically lied to and told that she was a liar, in the session, in front of-, I don’t even know how many people were in there, there must have been about 50 or 60 that were in there. It’s a difficult one to change. Gerry Lyons: We’ve got to break through it somehow. Gillian Hoyle: I don’t know how you can change that. Gerry Lyons: Because if you’re angry, and you’re saying you were getting angry earlier on, I want to know that. I don’t want you to be talking about how angry you are somewhere else, I want you to look my straight in the eye-, which I know you did, and you did so very well, I congratulate you on that, and tell me, ‘Gerry, I’m absolutely raging about this.’ There are people out there that I’m not hearing from and I just want to get them-, am I better just doing an online thing? Am I better sitting outside Sainsbury’s with my table with a pen, you know? Our team want to know that, don’t we Louisa? We’re frustrated and-, David: The first meeting I had in here, in the relatively recent past, on the Monday we had easily 60 or 70 people here. Gerry Lyons: We did, yes. David: Now that was because they were directly affected by what was happening, that was-, they’d been moved into Bishopton rather than here. So, they had a direct input into what their thing was. All the people in Dargavel were sold a message that this was going to be a sustainable community, that all the resources would be there, and here you’re all paying £2,152 a year to Renfrewshire Council and we’re saying, ‘What are you getting for it? You’re not even getting the grass cut.’ I’m sorry, that’s where there needs to be a completely clear-, and what the Councillors were asking-, or one side of the Council was asking for a review of the secondary provision, to take it down to what is the situation. If we had three secondary schools in this part of the world, Gryffe, Park Mains and Bishopton, about 1,000 pupils per school, that’s what you have to start talking to people about because the people
Page 166
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 you’re going to affect-, it will affect them in the long term, because their primary kids are not going to get a place locally. I hold my hands up, I suffered all my school my days from being shipped out to Paisley, to go to school in Paisely. I couldn’t get involved in extramural activities because I had to get the 4:06 train to get back home or someone would be wondering where the hell I’d got to, and it’s that feeling of belonging to a community. And from that point of view, when BAE themselves said, ‘We’ll need to have a secondary school on this site after 1,500 houses are built,’ but 4,322 and it’s completely off Renfrewshire Council’s agenda. Gillian Hoyle: Can I also just say, just in general, I mean, I think, when you’re doing your information sessions, like for example your meeting tonight, which is a Monday night. You’ve got your meeting, I think, in March, the next public meeting, which is a Tuesday. So, I think it’s good that you’re doing them on different days but obviously, I think, the main issue is what you said about the way people have been treated in the past. I think, just in general, to take into account that folk have got kids at home, you know, they might not have childcare, during the day they might not be able to come in because they’re working. You know, I came to the meeting today because I know that, you know, my husband’s at home looking after the kids. He works in London, I know that by the time the March meeting comes, he’ll probably be in London, so you know, I won’t be able to go to that one. So, just in terms of logistics, not everybody will be able to-, I’d quite like to come to the one in March again, but that’s also a factor that maybe needs to be taken into account. But it’s good that you’re doing them on different days and at different times and things. Gerry Lyons: Is an online solution part of that, or is that just too simplistic to say that? Gillian Hoyle: No, I mean, I think that’s useful, I think it’s useful for people who maybe can’t get out but yes, at the end of the day you’ve got childcare, you’ve got kids who you need to get homework done, get into bed, kids who don’t want to get into bed and it takes longer than-, Gerry Lyons: Aye, so like, childcare facilities at the meeting wouldn’t help that? Gillian Hoyle: Oh no, well, I don’t-, Various voices talking over each other. Laura Miller: We would have a lot of hyper kids. Gerry Lyons: Janie said to me, ‘I’ll look after any children.’ (Laughter) Don’t deny you said it, Janie, because I heard you. But no, it is genuinely saying, there are the challenges, what’s the answer? And at the moment we’re not getting the answer because we’re not getting people-, but I take your point that there are scars there that need dealing with and how do you do that? Yes. Jack Clark: Yes, I think there are a couple of things I was just going to say on that, is that, as you’ve just said, it’s about rebuilding trust and rebuilding goodwill between the parents and between the Council and everyone else. And having, sort of, flexible options for people who can’t come in for childcare
Page 167
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 but I think the other things is around the, sort of, community aspect of it. I mean, I was quite similar growing up, it was a half hour bus ride to school, I couldn’t do any, like, extracurricular activities at school. But there has been so much tonight that I’ve noticed about talking about Community Councils and Parent Councils, and things, and getting them involved. But the thing is, not everyone’s involved in their Community Council. I mean, if you take Paisely, four of the Community Councils there have gone defunct, a fifth one’s at risk of going defunct in a few weeks’ time. People just aren’t involved in the Community Councils, you can’t just use that as a way of doing it, you need to reach out, whether it’s-, Gerry Lyons: No, so, what would you suggest is a better way of doing it then? Jack Clark: Well, I think yes, having them on board where possible but also, I don’t know, just having stuff through the Council. Say, if there was, like, something that goes out from the Council, like a newsletter or something, for talking’s sake, and it says, ‘There’s a consultation on the primary school on this day at this time. There’s also a Zoom link if you want to come along on Zoom.’ And just being more direct with people rather than doing it through, like, a third party like a Community Council. Gerry Lyons: Alright, okay. David: My comment is that it’s far better since-, well, I’m saying the last three or four months, you’re getting updates every so often online. Some of it’s relevant, a lot of it’s other places but you see things happening and from that point of view, it’s a bit of a building block towards re-engaging. Gillian Hoyle: Exactly. Laura Miller: That’s what we want. Gillian Hoyle: We need to start-, I think you’re not-, Gerry Lyons: And we know it’s not a (talking over each other) process. Gillian Hoyle: I don’t think you’re going to start seeing the numbers coming to this again until you’ve started to make in-roads, until they’ve started to see the changes happening. That’s why I was saying about continually reporting the numbers and see where you-, people are seeing change, seeing the difference and then will want to be engaged. Gerry Lyons: So, are we suggesting then that the public consultation will not be the right forum for that, it will go beyond that? Gillian Hoyle: This is a long-term thing, this isn’t a quick win. Gerry Lyons: No, I know that anyway, but what I mean is in terms of making this consultation work, which only runs until the end of March, that we should just-, I don’t mean resign ourselves because I never give up on anything-, Gillian Hoyle: You need to go with what you’ve got. Gerry Lyons: But we just need to keep doing what we’re doing but recognising we might be doing it to small numbers, but each one maybe matters.
Page 168
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Janie O’Neill: My intention’s not to get to the end of the consultation and say, ‘Right, that’s it,’ (Timecode: 01:20:00) it’s about continuous engagement with the communities, and this is hopefully, as you say, a building block. We understand it’s not going to happen quickly or overnight but we’re quite-, we’ll keep offering as much as we can, the whole team feels exactly the same way, and we recognise it will take time but we hope that, you know, we’ll get there, and we’ll work with you to do that, and listen to you as well. Gerry Lyons: And there’s no reason why you should trust that, you just need to see it and experience it. And that’s the point, isn’t it, and that’s why you (talking over each other). Gillian Hoyle: Exactly and that’s why we reply, ‘Continue reporting,’ actions speak louder than words. Sure, I agree. Okay, great, is that not a bad place to leave it, do you think? Peter, sorry. Janie O’Neill: Gerry Lyons: Peter McColl: Could I just say one more thing, which is, I think-, I mean, I can’t speak for you and how you’ve experienced this but if you have found that there’s been a change of attitude, I think it’s really important that the engagement comes in to the consultation in the period when the consultation’s open. And I appreciate what you’re saying about a lack of trust and things but I think there are questions that will have to be answered as a result of the consultation. And therefore getting as rich a response into the consultation as possible is really important and, I mean, I think there’s a willingness to listen, and I think it would be helpful to get more responses in that spirit. Really, what Gerry started with, we want to get the best thing for the children and for the community, and I think that has to be the priority here. Gerry Lyons: And there will be an online questionnaire released very shortly which will allow people who can’t come to meetings through that forum, so that will be another opportunity that people will have. Gillian Hoyle: I do have two more things, yes, I am being that person when everyone wants to go home. First of all, the existing Dargavel Primary, there were things descoped in the original plans, specifically the MUGA, it was originally meant to be a 5G pitch with floodlights. Is there an opportunity in all of this to get the MUGA upgraded and it become the 5G pitch that it was originally meant to be? Gerry Lyons: Honest answer, I don’t know, honest answer. David: It’s a very similar one to the funding to the (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Aye, but listen, we’re taking a note of it, so, let’s start the conversation but I don’t know. Chris Dalrymple: I think that’s what we’d need to discuss, Gerry, as part of it. Obviously, the last one wasn’t run by us, we had an oversight of it, and it you’re absolutely right, it was descoped. One of the key things for the new school is making sure that finance, resources, everything that Frank’s team are going to put into this correct.
Page 169
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 David: And ringfenced. Gillian Hoyle: Ultimately, we know that the current football clubs use Inverclyde and they pay, I’m imagining, quite a lot of money every single week to another community instead of coming back into Dargavel Primary or the other primary school. George Morrison: Thousands of pounds every year going out of this community. Gillian Hoyle: That should be coming back into this community. David: Or on to the Development Trust. Chris Dalrymple: I would completely agree, anything that’s in Renfrewshire should be staying in Renfrewshire, more locally, within Bishopton, and it’s one of the commitments that there will be a synthetic pitch with floodlights that can be used by the community, in the new school. Gillian Hoyle: In the new school. Chris Dalrymple: Correct. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, I’m keen to try and see about getting this one upgraded so that there is then a facility for the kids, and there are two facilities then instead of just one. Gerry Lyons: I think that would be an excellent quick win for the Council. Gillian Hoyle: There was a lot of disdain on the MUGA, just, there were a lot of views on that one. Gerry Lyons: I’m not going to back over the dad race when they all got too competitive and somebody fell and got badly-, Louise Chisholm: It’s me that organises that, wheesht. Gerry Lyons: (Talking over each other) with the MUGA, that’s all I want to say. Gillian Hoyle: My second point then, was on the secondary school. I do still think that you are open to issues down the line with the secondary school and that it should be getting considered as part of Bishopton. Gerry Lyons: I hear that, I hear what you’re saying, it’s a different conversation but it’s a conversation that we’ll have, absolutely. David: The priority’s the primary at the moment. Gerry Lyons: Yes, and this is a consultation on the primary. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, it is, but let’s not just push it down the line. Gerry Lyons: But let’s not just that we’re not talking about the secondary, we’re going to talk about the secondary, we’re going to have similar conversations about the secondary as this. And we will have those conversations from the different perspectives that we bring to them, and that’s right and proper, so I can assure you of that, you don’t need to worry about it, we’ll have that conversation.
Page 170
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 Laura Miller: Yes, because I think, you know, and I probably speak for every parent that’s going to have a child coming through either this school or the new school, that-, and even actually, kids that will be going to Bishopton Primary, you know, between these three schools you’re going to have a lot of children who’ve had a very-, and this is no offence against the teachers because this is a great school, a very disrupted primary education, through no fault of the teachers or anything, but through, you know the whole process of-, you know, you’re going to have some children who when they go to high school, have potentially been in three separate primary schools, three different primary schools, they’ve been in Bishopton, they’ve been here, maybe they’ll have their last year over in the new school. And whilst the primary school’s important, high school’s extremely important, you’re going up-, this is where you’re going to, you know, potentially get your qualifications. So, I think, yes, you need to get the primary school sorted and everything needs to get done with that, but I definitely don’t think that we can lose sight because I’m just thinking about having my daughter thinking that she’s going to be going to Park Mains with her pals. But is she going to be going to Park Mains with her pals? What happens if she’s not and she’s getting shipped to, you know, another high school? If I wanted her to go to that high school I’d move to that catchment area, you know, and that’s-, I think a lot of parents will be concerned, and I know what you’re saying, it’s about the primary school, and I get that, but I definitely think that we shouldn’t lose sight because this is just going to be more complications further down the line. Gerry Lyons: Yes, I’m not saying that in terms of, it’s not in our sights, it is in our sights and it’s absolutely in our sights. My point is only that this consultation’s about this bit, but your point’s a valid one. Laura Miller: Of course. Gerry Lyons: And your whole educational journey’s important to parents for their children, and we know that, so we want to keep talking about that, and we’ll have those conversations. I’m already committed to going to Bishopton Community Council to talk about Park Mains after Easter, and I’m happy to make that offer for officers to come and have these conversations. Which might just at first be coming and saying, ‘Right, we know where we think we are, tell us where you’re coming from,’ and then build from there. And the Park Mains Head Teacher is going to do that as well. Louisa Mahon: Gerry Lyons: And the Park Mains Head Teacher, so we’ve got a plan for that, and just watch out for that coming down the line, okay? Everyone okay with that? Are we okay to draw it to a conclusion? In fact, you guys have been out often enough. No, it’s alright. David: Louisa Mahon: Gerry Lyons: Listen, we made a commitment to engage and we can’t engage from somewhere else, we can only engage in here, so we’re delighted to be here. And as I said at the start, I love these meetings, these meetings are terrific,
Page 171
Dargavel Primary 19.02.24 really good, they’re open, they’re frank, they’re decent, and they’re with people who are genuinely concerned about getting the best for the children. I’ll talk to people like that forever. Laura Miller: We respect that. Gerry Lyons: So, there’s no problem with that at all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I wish I’d spoken to more, you know my frustration there and I hope you don’t mind me acknowledging that. Louisa Mahon: You’ve still got the opportunity, I mean, there are two more information evenings, there’s another public meeting where-, Gerry Lyons: Aye, we’re trying to do things differently. Louisa Mahon: Absolutely, we’re so keen for more people to come along and attend, so we’re going to be talking, I think, this week, about getting information out to everyone across the villages, how can we do that, try and encourage more people to come along attend, if you can help us with that, that would be great. David: (Talking over each other) to push (talking over each other) folk coming, there’s a barrier to be broken down. Gerry Lyons: Absolutely. Laura Miller: There’s definitely a barrier to be broken down but, I guess, I would say I’m a bit disappointed there’s nobody from the PC here, from the Dargavel Parent Council. Janie O’Neill: I have to admit, I was really surprised when I arrived because based on the number of emails and the amount of talking, and conversation, and what an incredibly huge, sort of, subject this is, I honestly thought it would be very, very busy. I have to be honest, I’m very surprised. Gerry Lyons: And we certainly planned for that but it’s helpful for us to get, again, lived experience from people saying, ‘This is probably why, Gerry, and it’s probably beyond your capability at the moment to fix it, but time will maybe help with that,’ so that’s fine. But listen, can I say to everyone who’s been here, thank you for (a) coming along and (b) for the way you’ve contributed. I’ve really enjoyed talking to you, I think we’ve all enjoyed hearing your concerns and the way you’ve expressed them. And, you know, just to finish with our commitment, I’ve been talking to everyone here in the offices and there’s not one person who’s not absolutely determined to get this right, and I can assure you of that. So, we’re going to keep working through. David: Right, tell the politicians that. (Laughter) Gerry Lyons: I’m going to leave David with the last word on that (Laughter, talking over each other). Recording ends.
Page 172
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Introduction Gerry Lyons: Okay, good evening, everyone, lovely to see you all and I’m sorry I’m using the mic. You’ll see there are microphones around all the proceedings tonight, which are for the recording of tonight, with a view to getting an accurate record of the discussions. So, all the sessions will be recorded, I’m using the mic, not just because I’ve got a bit of a throat but because we can record, like I say. So, firstly, welcome to all of you and thank you for coming, it’s great to see so many of you here tonight. If I can just introduce myself, for those of you that I’ve not met before. I’m Gerry Lyons, I am interim Head of Service for Children’s Services in Renfrewshire Council and the lead for this statutory consultation, I will be leading and chairing proceedings tonight. I have a range of colleagues with me who you’ll meet as the night goes on, I’m not going to introduce them all just now but they’ll introduce themselves as we go through the proceedings tonight. We also have representation from Education Scotland who is here purely as an observer and will not become involved in any conversations, that’s not Education Scotland’s role, it’s to observe and to evaluate the process, and to give feedback, so that’s the way that will work from the Education Scotland perspective. I’m going to open tonight with a very short presentation because tonight is really not about you listening to me or to anyone else but much more about you getting a chance to-, for us to listen to you and we know that’s not been something that has been done in the past particularly successfully, but we are very determined to rectify that and to take a listening position on all of the issues, as far as we possibly can. So, let me just, kind of, introduce then-, and although this is a proposal which is very practical, the building of a new school in a particular place and a series of catchment areas, I think it’s worth taking some time to reflect on what sits underneath that, and to hold on to what sits underneath it, which are these two things here. That firstly, we want to deliver the highest possible quality education provision for all of the children, and that’s both now and in the future, there is a pressing element to this and I’m sure we’ll talk a bit about the pressing element of it. So, we have to deliver for the children now, but we also have to deliver a facility that, in whatever number of years from now, is still worthy of those children, is still giving them an environment where they can learn and achieve their potential, so those are the two joint commitments to the children. The second principle is one which is really important to us and has been really important to loads of people we’ve spoken to, which is that community commitment, the facilities for community use which enhance the community of Bishopton and Dargavel. Already we’ve had lots of feedback from people saying that that’s something that’s really missing at the moment, that’s a real miss, and also that we set out on that road before and never really delivered that. One of the important principles is that both of these things are fundamental to the proposal. One is not ancillary to the other, they are absolutely fundamental and therefore our intent is to deliver on both of them. So, tonight is, just for the context, a public meeting, it sits within the statutory consultation guidelines that are set out by the government, and we have a set of outcomes linked to those principles that we want to deliver tonight. The first one is that transparency, and again, that’s been a criticism in the past, that we haven’t been as transparent as we could be, and tonight we are going to-, and throughout this process actually, it’s been a real guiding light for all of the officers involved, that we are transparent about facts and if we don’t have facts, about going and getting those facts, and bringing them back. About the constraints that exist and
Page 173
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Introduction that we have to accommodate within this process and the challenges that we face, and some of those are challenges which impact very directly on you, if not all of them. So, we have to be open about that and help give a genuine picture of the situation where we are. We want to listen and we want to understand the lived experience, which for a lot of you has been very upsetting, has been challenging, and has made you very angry, and we get that, but we want to understand it better. We want to hear the widest range of views and part of this whole approach has been to get as many different ways that people could contribute as we could, so that we could hear from as many people as possible, and all the views that exist, both within the community and across the whole of Bishopton. What are the concerns and what are the thoughts? Again, so that we can inform what we’re doing by those. A statutory consultation has to start with a proposal, and we do have a proposal, but it is open to alternatives and to the possibility that there’s a better way of doing this, and we need to hear what those alternatives might be, so that we can give them consideration prior to any decision making. We want tonight to be a positive experience for everyone and I’m aware, and I’ve had it told to me in other sessions that we’ve had, that previous public meetings weren’t necessarily positive for people. We want tonight, whatever happens and whatever you feel about the outcomes, that at least you feel it’s been a positive two hours of your life, and that it was worth coming along. So, we want that for everyone tonight. So, the way we’re going to organise the session, we’ve got this quick introduction from myself, we’re then going to split into two groups. The first group will go next door and they will work with Gerry and Alistair Morrison to talk about the site, transport, and all issues associated with that. Those people are the people that are responsible for delivering on those issues, so they’re the best people to talk to. The second group will stay here with myself and we will talk about catchment areas, roll projections, admissions, all the, I suppose, education stuff. You’re not tied to any of those, you can talk about anything you want but those are the, kind of, focus. We’ll do that for about 35 minutes, give or take, we’ll then have a quick comfort break and I’ll go next door, and Alistair and the team will come in here, and we’ll have the second workshop where we swap round the areas of focus. We’ll then come together about 8:40 for any final questions or any final comment, or any issues that you wanted to hear about that you’ve not had the chance to hear about. The whole design of the evening is about giving as wide a range of information and fitting in with those outcomes that we identified. Just, I suppose, the ethos of the meeting and how we want to conduct the meeting. We want it to be open, so if you’ve got something to say, it’s right and proper that you say it, I don’t want anyone to feel that they can’t say whatever they want to say, and that there’s an honest exchange of views. You will probably disagree with each other, that’s absolutely fine, but that is open and honest, and well intentioned, and holding on, I think, to those principles about getting it right for the children and for the community. We want that done with that backdrop of mutual respect and a civil way of going about our business, and that as chair, is something that I have responsibility for, to chair in a way that makes sure that that’s intact, that we hold on to finding solutions and looking forward, but not in a way that disregards what happened in the past. What happened in the past is absolutely relevant and still live for so many people, but we want to try to, kind of, give credit to that, recognise that,
Page 174
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Introduction but also say, ‘Right, so what do we do differently moving forward?’ Lastly, that if you ask something we don’t have the answer to, we are going to tell you we don’t have the answer, but we are going to commit to finding the answer and bringing it back to you, so that there’s not a, kind of, waffling our way round things we don’t quite get. We are going to be honest and say, ‘I don’t know the answer to that but we will commit to getting it to you, and when we’ll get it to you.’ So, that is really how (Timecode: 00:10:00) we want to organise the evening and hopefully run the evening, I hope you’re all comfortable with that. Let me give you a wee sense of what we’ve heard already and that may be something you’ve heard already, if you’ve been at information sessions, so apologies for that, but it maybe sets a scene for some of the discussions we’re going to have. One of the biggest conversations we’ve been having is about the numbers, of course that was one of the biggest issues the last time, if the not the biggest issue. So, ‘Are the numbers accurate? How are we making decisions? Are we thinking through all the possibilities?’ We’ve had quite a lot of chat about that. The site decision, there is a site matrix, we have gone through a scoring process, Alistair will talk to that and answer any questions about the site matrix. The decision-making process is outlined in the booklet that you can take away with you, and the timing. Consistently what I’ve said, and I’ll say it again this evening, is that August 2027 is a key date for this. We have primary one parents who are having the location of their child’s education, and primary one education, decided by a ballot. We want that situation to exist for as little time as possible, it’s on us that it does exist, so there’s no hiding from that fact, but it’s not where we want to be. I’m very aware of how important that is to all of you, and you want certainty. August 2027 is a key date for us because until then, we can manage the primary one numbers between Dargavel and Bishopton. By August 2027 we can no longer do that and the schools would then extend out to the next nearest school. We want to avoid that scenario at all costs, so timing has been one of the things that is driving our position on all of this. We know there have been huge traffic and safety concerns, we know there continue to be huge traffic and safety concerns. There was a conversation the other night about a temporary drop-off zone in this school, and you’ll get more detail of that this evening from Alistair and from Frank. I had my first meeting today about the scheduling of that temporary drop-off zone and when it will be ready, and when it will be available for use. It was a very early discussion and Frank and Alistair are far better positioned to talk about that than me. We can talk about the design of the building, we have tried to learn from the experience of this building, and the experience of people who work here and who learn here, and they’ve been involved in our conversations about the new building. We’ve heard so much about community facilities, you know, the MUGA that’s in this school, which was never what people thought they were getting, about the importance of a sports pitch, sports facilities, those facilities that allow people to have clubs and have societies, and all of that kind of stuff, so we know how important that is. The big question, you know, ‘Is the school going to be ready on time?’ We believe it is but following the consultation and the kind of conversations we’ve had during the consultation, we’ve now started processes to say, ‘So, what will be our position if it starts to look as though it’s not going to be ready in time?’ There’s a bit of a, ‘Heaven
Page 175
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Introduction forfend,’ around that but nevertheless, we want to be ready on the off-chance. What are the alternatives? Again, we’ve heard alternatives, we’ve heard proposed alternatives from people in terms of different sites, and again, we have to be open to them. We did have a question about how it works if the decision is that we don’t use the site that’s in the proposal, do we just move to the next one? The answer to that question is, ‘No, that’s not what happens.’ What happens is, we have to go back to the joint board and we have to draw up a new proposal, we have to identify the specifics of it and bring back a new statutory consultation on that new proposal, whatever that may be. So, that’s, kind of, what happens if the statutory consultation doesn’t lead to a moving forward of the proposal. The other thing that we’ve started a conversation about is that at the end of this statutory consultation is 26th March but that should not be the end of the engagement with the community. So, we are looking at, ‘How do we keep the community involved in our ongoing monitoring of numbers? How do we keep you up to date with the progress of the building and the planning? How do we keep listening to you about any concerns you might have, any progress we’ve got in traffic management or any of those issues?’ So, we will be looking at an ongoing community engagement strategy, so that it’s not a case of, ‘Right, that’s the statutory consultation over, no more discussion.’ I did get a bit of feedback today about that, how important that was, and that seems to me to make perfect sense, and the comms team were very, very keen that we start to plan that out. So, these are things we’ve heard so far, they’re not the only things, and we’ll hear new things tonight, and please, if there’s something up there-, if there’s something missing, please let us know what it is and we will have the conversation based on that. So, that’s, kind of, where we are just now, that’s setting the scene. As I say, we want to have as much time for discussion as possible, so as I say, we’re going to split you into two. It’s not going to be particularly scientific but if everyone from this microphone here, on this side, stays here and everyone on this side goes through the partitions, then that will be the two groups, and then we’ll swap round. Obviously if you are here with someone and that split doesn’t work for you then don’t hesitate just to stay where you are, and we’re not worrying about that. Is that okay? So, off you go and then we’ll come back at the end for some discussion, thanks very much. M1: Excuse me please, sorry, can I check, is the recording happening next door as well? Gerry Lyons: Yes. M1: Good, and where can we get access to this recording? Gerry Lyons: We are going to transcribe the recording and that will be part of the record of the consultation. M1: When will we get access to that? Gerry Lyons: The consultation will be published as part of the final report and everything that sits underneath it, it will probably be on the website but again, we’ll take advice as to how to make it easiest to access. Okay? Recording ends.
Page 176
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gerry Lyons: Okay everyone, lovely to see you as I said, and we’re together for the next half hour or so, give or take. I don’t want to just keep talking as this is an evening for you, and we’ve got to make as much time-, we want to make as much time as we can. So, it’s up to yourselves, if somebody’s got a question, let’s start there and then build from there, if it’s easier for me to talk you through a couple of issues then just tell me what you’d like to know a bit more about. M1: As I mentioned in the notes that I sent to you, at this stage we’ve had Space Zero, we’ve had all the consultations and presentations, at this point in time it’s words and objectives and what have you. To make a decision, in my mind, on things like basic designs and drawings should be so that people can look at that detail. Not just a whole load of words, and there have been a lot of words so far. You mentioned there that there’s a decision going to be made towards the end of March. Gerry Lyons: The consultation process finishes at the end of March, the actual decision in terms of starting the process will be made on 23rd May. M1: Yes, but what is that decision going to be? Gerry Lyons: So, that decision will be that the board approves the building of a new school, what site it should be on, and that the catchment areas are whatever they are at the end of the consultation. So, that will be the decision. That starts a process that, you know, Frank and colleagues will lead around those design issues that you talk about, and that will be an important part of the process because that’s when you start to see, ‘What’s this thing going to look like?’ You’re right, that’s vitally important and we want the community to be able to influence that as much as possible, but that’s the, kind of, end of a statutory process that says, to a date-, it should be six weeks, ours has lasted about eight weeks. Then a final report, then a report from Education Scotland, which they take about three weeks of work to do, and following their report, there are then three weeks for us to consider what they come back to us with. I’m looking at my colleague over there just to see that I’m saying that properly. Then we put that to the board, the board decision is the start of a process, not the end of a process, if that makes sense. David: Is that the Education Board or the full Council? Gerry Lyons: That’s the Education and Skills Board, yes. F1: (Inaudible, too far from microphone) when that happened for this school-, Gerry Lyons: Sorry, just-, F1: So, from the time that that green light go ahead was given for this school, what was the period of time for design and build to the school opening? To give an idea-, Gerry Lyons: So, there is a board next door that you can look at, it’s also in your booklet. So, I’ll just talk you through it and then you can look at it on your own. F1: Yes, so if you can give us an idea of how long that process was, to give-,
Page 177
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Sorry, Gerry, are you talking about the previous, this school? This school here. Oh, this school. From the green light going ahead to this school opening, what was that time frame? Because if we’re talking ’27-, What an excellent question and it’s my first, ‘Don’t know,’ of the night, I honestly don’t know how long it took. You don’t know how long it took to build this school? No, because I wasn’t working in the Council at the time, I know when it all, kind of, came to light, but guys, have you got a sense of that? So, the school that we’re having the debate about not having enough size, the area that we’re talking about, you guys don’t know the basics? That’s so bad. Yes, no, no, absolutely, Frank, can you give us a sense of-, I can give you an idea of some of the issues with the timeline for this, this was slightly different because it wasn’t built by Renfrewshire Council, it was through BAE, and they appointed their own contractors, their own design team. It was through part of the COVID period, so that timeline that you see, it took quite a bit of time to open. It shouldn’t impact on this new school because we shouldn’t have, obviously, a pandemic. So, it’s slightly different, this is obviously 400, 440, we’re going to build an 800 school, it’s a bigger (talking over each other) entirely. Well, give us an estimate of a school that you’ve built of the same size without COVID. 800, well, we’re looking at two years’ construction, that’s for the new school. So, that’s construction, what about the full design phase and the ordering of materials etc? Because that’s-, Could I just ask you two, is that for the recording? Not because you’re (talking over each other), it’s just for the recording. So, if it’s two years’ construction, how long for design and material order? It’s basically when we get the consultation approved, we get the go ahead to basically build on whatever site it is that you want, presumably. That date which we’ll probably say May-, when is the consultation approval? May 23rd. May 23rd, so it’s probably May onwards. So, you’re talking about May ’24 to August ’27. Chris Dalrymple: F1: Gerry Lyons: F1: Gerry Lyons: F1: Gerry Lyons: F1: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: F1: Frank Farrell: F1: Gerry Lyons: F1: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: So, May 24th is the decision, the technical design conclusion will take place from July to December 2024. You’ve then got planning application, am I right in saying that takes about 20 weeks?
Page 178
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Frank Farrell: No, that’s building standards, planning depends on Alistair, Alistair’s next door, planning on depends on exactly what you’re building. Gerry Lyons: Right, so we’ve got that from March 2025, construction on site in July 2025, with a view to the opening of the school in August 2027. F1: Very, very tight. Gerry Lyons: That’s the project plan. F1: Not a lot of room for error in there, is there? ?: Tight, I don’t think it’s achievable. M3: If I could just drill into that a bit too, I think. So, looking at the programme that’s in the (inaudible), a couple of things jump out to me, I’m just curious as to the logic behind it. So, starting with the programme, we’re looking at March now, so detailed design will be now, architects appointed this month as well, why are you putting detailed planning in at March ’25? Frank Farrell: Because we don’t have enough important planning information to go on, we don’t think we have enough detail. M3: But your engineers, main contractors, your feedback from technical design, if they’re all dealt with before that-, it’s a very unusual move. Frank Farrel: I would qualify that by saying this is indicative timing, if we can get the consultants appointed earlier, the planning process might commence earlier. M3: It strikes me that there’s a strategy there, in the public domain, which planning has to be, that you give us three months as a community to comment against that planning application. If it doesn’t go ahead at the eleventh hour it’s all the community’s fault because August ’27 is a key date, do you understand? Frank Farrell: It’s not meant to come across like that, that was never the intention, I’m sorry you read it that way, that’s not the case at all. Gerry Lyons: I think there’s an important element, just on one of the things you said, that I want to come back to. We do not have any intention in operating in a way that says that anything that doesn’t go as we wish it to go would be the community’s fault. That’s not what we’re trying to do here, if the community tell us that there’s something better and something they would prefer, we’re going to respect that. If it doesn’t fit in with the timeline that we’d hope for, then fine, but that won’t be about fault, that will be about saying, ‘Full transparency, full recognition of what people are saying.’ If you say to me, ‘August 2027, Gerry, is really important to you but it’s not as important to this community, we’d rather stretch it out to August 2030,’ then I have got to take cognizance of that, and I would not be saying for one second, ‘Well, if it’s not dealt with by August 2027, that’s your fault.’ Because that’s not the way we want to go forward. So, I know the point you’re making, I just want to pick up that wee issue about fault. M3: No, it’s fine and it’s a valid point for the room, my point isn’t about blame, it’s that the process doesn’t seem right, it doesn’t follow any project I’ve
Page 179
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One ever seen. Detailed planning is something we try and tick the box off early, to make sure you’ve got your consultants, your community, your engagement, your public-, you’d have the look, the feel, the size, the quantum, you’d have all those things done by technical design. Second to that, there are two years for the design-, sorry not design, the delivery, only delivery of the project, for the school. A school that size averages about 78 to 82 weeks. Sorry, I didn’t hear the last bit there. Frank Farrell: M3: The average duration for a primary school of that size, passive house, net zero is taking 78 to 82 weeks, so there are about six months of a difference there between the two years and the eighteen months. If you had a rejig of the programme, you’d have a lot more time there, I think, to look at site selection, community engagement and the benefit of what we want as a community, rather than what feels a little like racing to a programme that looks very busy. Key points, we’ve got to get to the solution that works because I do agree, August ’27 is a very important date. I do not want to see any child failed in the education element of this community but it just feels really quick to race through this, given that I was here a year ago when we were talking about site selection, and we’re still talking about trying to get this work the best route possible. So, I’m not pointing fingers, I’m asking simple questions as to, ‘Is this the right programme?’ I don’t believe it is but there’s enough time there still to look at it, change it, and see, ‘What do we want? What can we bring and what can we contribute?’ Chris Dalrymple: If I can just intrude, so my name’s Chris Dalrymple, I’m the Head of Facilities and Property Services, so Frank and I will work closely together (Timecode: 00:10:00). I think as Gerry’s alluded to, and Frank has said, see if we can pull things forward, we absolutely will. We were asked to look at an indicative timescale to allow us to work through the programme, some of the comments you’ve said there are very fair. I’d like to discuss them in a wee bit more detail, I’m sure Frank would as well, as the Programme Manager for the technical unit but we want to work with the community and we really want to give as much time-, in case we encounter something that we aren’t expecting, you sound like you’re in the game as well, you know what you’re talking about. We will encounter some problems, we want to give ourselves some scope so that that key date is being met, but I’d like Frank and I to discuss that a wee bit more with you as part of this consultation. Frank Farrell: As Chris says, this is indicative, this is the indicative timescale we’ve got to meet an August ’27 date. So, yes, some of these dates might move around, you know what it’s like. We’re not going to micromanage every single activity here but the end date is August ’27 that we’ve been aiming for. So, planning application ’25, it might be earlier than that, it depends on what happens to technical design, what happens to the consultation with, obviously, the residents, the community, also with education. Gerry Lyons: It’s a really fair point and Chris will follow that up, so thank you for it. David: One of the things that was raised by the community was the fact that the land that’s currently being used, or potentially going to be used, is the old
Page 180
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One ROF site. It needs remediated, it needs cleaned up. If we’d gone for a clean site, which there are quite a number of around the perimeter of the site, albeit yes, they are in green belt or whatever, but I think if there’s a will, there’s a way and that would be one way of taking things forward with a bit more confidence. Because at the moment, you don’t know what you’re going to find under that ground, it could be ammonium perchlorate, it could be nitrocellulose, it could be whatever because that is an old site, it’s part of the old development. We flagged this up easily last year some time but they’ve gone, ‘No,’ because of the complexities of the relationship with BAE, this was a way ahead quickly that Renfrewshire Council could get a site. Guys, do you want to make any comment on that? Thanks, David. Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: Essentially just that BAE have remediating that site already, they’ve started to remediate it already, and they were doing that last year as well, that site and various other sites. So, the whole point is that they cleanse that site down to a standard level, be it 450 or 750 below the base, and they’re obviously going to clean that of what materials they find in there, hotspots etc. So, it should be clean if that’s the site we eventually choose, that’s what we hope. Gerry Lyons: Thank you. M1: Going back to the point on duration, the architect appointment is the end of this month? Yes. What do you base the architect appointment on? On ability or whatever? Frank Farrell: M1: Frank Farrell: Well, there’s a competitive tender process that’s going on through Hub West. We’ve engaged with Hub West and I don’t know if anybody’s aware what Hub West is, it’s an organisation that authorities can use for a straight supply chain that they have available for consultants and contractors. So, they engage with the market for architects, engineers, contractors and they have a team ready to, basically, start once we agree what site it is, they can start on the design. So, they haven’t designed anything because we don’t know where we’re going to be putting it yet, so it’s really just to get a head start on the design process itself. Are they looking at different architects at the moment? That process is being undertaken by Hub West, the same with engineers. M1: Frank Farrell: M1: They then go into detailed design March to June, I mean, that’s a tight schedule. I can’t comment on that, that’s not my thing. ?: Frank Farrell: That’s detailed design commencing, then we’re going to appoint an engineer, mechanical engineer as well. They will feed in to the existing design for the architect, the architect starts first, there are various ways around it but this one’s going to feed in with the architect. So, it is tight but that doesn’t actually complete until December ’24, the technical design,
Page 181
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One there are various stages it goes through, and detailed design commences then. That’s the commencing date? Yes, so there’s a nine-month, kind of, designing period-, Yes, it is. M1: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: M1: It’s got to be tight if it’s on one side, it’s not (talking over each other) the diagram. We haven’t put every single activity in there. No, but it’s about (talking over each other) If that was the start of-, Okay, it starts in March, all things being equal. (Inaudible) no doubt about that. Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: M1: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: F1: Sorry, I mean, it’s just quite disappointing, the detail-, (inaudible, too far from microphone) Gerry Lyons: It’s just we won’t be able to take a note of your point, that’s the only issue. I know you might not like it but it’s just for the accuracy of the meeting. F1: Right, okay, so the amount of detail that you have around the planning. You say, obviously, you want the community to be involved in the decision if there’s a better way to do something, it’s all about the children, it’s all about community investment, and you’ve just mentioned there that you’re not going to micromanage this. Having a community that has households that are full of anxiety and stress over where their children are going, the discussion around primary ones having to be ferried out of the village to start a school career away from their nursery mates, their children that they socialise with in the village, that is not good for the community. So, the August ’27 date is really non-negotiable and yes, it’s very good to have the community’s input into it but do you not think you really need to take the bull by the horns a little bit here and actually put some guidance out there of what can and cannot be moved? Gerry Lyons: Yes, absolutely, yes, I think the one of the challenges of that point is that we are very much-, not constrained, that’s not the right way of saying it, but we have to finish a period of statutory consultation. Until we finish that period of statutory consultation we can’t give, and move forward with, precise details about anything because it would be inappropriate to do so. So, while I understand what you’re saying and I understand the anxiety, nevertheless, this process is governed by a set of guidelines that are not ours and are non- negotiable. F1: That’s the standing situation but as a number of people have said, we’re talking about the same things we were talking about a year ago. So, in that timeframe you could have set out a number of things that are within the art of the possible to do, and not to do, which gives the community time to
Page 182
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One comment on that. You’ve had comment upon comment, so now we’re moving closer to that deadline of August ’27, it’s quite clearly not about the children because if it was then you would be doing more to tighten those timeframes and using things that-, it’s just really disappointing just now to be at this point and you still can’t tie down a plan. Gerry Lyons: Yes, I think, I mean, at the end of the day that’s your view. I disagree with you that it’s not about the children, the whole driver is to get this right for the children. F1: It’s not (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: However, I understand why you’re saying that, what I’m saying to you is that the team have got an indicative timeline. We will engage with you as much as we possibly can once this-, we’ve done so during this process, we will continue to do so after this process, and throughout the whole process, to give as much comfort as we can around the progress that’s being made and the decisions that are being made. Inevitably, we are in a particular process at the moment and we can’t do too much until that’s finished. That’s, kind of, outwith our gift, I understand your concern about it. F1: It’s one very small part of-, Gerry Lyons: I understand your concern about it but we are determined to engage with you as much as we can as we go through the next stages. I should just get four or five mics, shouldn’t I? M3: If I could drill in a bit to the design appointments, what’s the remit? So, two questions, what’s the remit of the design team? Is it to design the school in isolation or is it to design the school within the masterplan? Second question, is the school going to be passive house or net zero? The Renfrewshire Council net zero policy is to be by 2030, which, this school will be finished by ’27, or sorry, started by ’27. It falls within that strategy, are we taking cognizance of that so that the school is operationally cheap to run, helping the burden on the Council? So, the first and the second part, if you don’t mind. Just repeat the first part again? Frank Farrell: M3: The first part is the remit of the design, is it the school in isolation or is the school within the masterplan? Frank Farrell: Our remit within property services is to build the school, design the school but obviously we’ve got to do that in conjunction with the site itself. We obviously liaise with BAE, we’ve been doing that with this school as well. So, yes, we will be building the school, not in isolation, even though it is a standalone project for us, we’ll have to liaise with BAE, essentially, because of the access routes, active travel, various other things. Basically, it’s both, we have to design a school for our client and obviously the community, but we still have to link up with BAE. Chris Dalrymple: The second one was about the passive house.
Page 183
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Frank Farrell: Passive house, yes, the brief to Hub West is to look for passive house certified, if we can achieve that, net zero, we can (inaudible) standards because it sounds as if you probably know the building regs have become far more stringent in the last couple of months, that comes in in April. So, we will be building to the new standards and we will be looking for passive house, possibly certified building, but certainly net zero aspirations contained within. M3: To (Timecode 00:20:00) the first one, the design and masterplan, which is a good thing, looking at the current school and the situation for traffic, it’s not the best for buses. There’s no design in the masterplan for lay-bys, for parking areas, for example, so when you’re trying to drop your child off at school, like I do, you can get stuck behind twenty cars quite easily with one bus. Now, another school, assuming that site goes ahead because of time and the deals that are being done, it’s quite close in proximity so the buses then increase, the volume of traffic increases. I know there have been traffic studies done recently but we’re probably about, what, 55% roughly through the development, so there are a lot more cars and people still to come. Will the masterplan be changed as part of this process, so that we can factor in lay-bys and more provisions for the buses and the traffic during that point in time? Bearing in mind that one of the main arteries have yet to be built, so is there an opportunity, I’m asking, to change-, Are you talking about BAE’s masterplan? Frank Farrell: M3: I think legally it’s BAE’s masterplan, the Council’s remit is to protect the community in that masterplan and the vision of that masterplan. That masterplan serves the community, so yes, legally BAE have that. It’s going to really get my fires going if we hide behind BAE with that because the voice of us telling you is that we have an opportunity to change this. BAE are on the hook for aspects of it, but it’s not been built yet, so why not change that before it gets built, while there’s an opportunity to do that? You know, for me, legally, the section 75 is proportional to the original masterplan, not the current and the future masterplan. There must be something we can do there to annoy them about that, noise them up a bit, get something in our favour. There are more houses-, Gerry Lyons: Sorry, can I suggest that you ask that question next door? Everything associated with section 75 and all those issues is another workshop. M3: But section 75 to one side, the road has yet to be completed, there’s a loop, so half of that, roughly, is still to be done. Gerry Lyons: The team next door is talking about that road loop as well. M3: But is that in the design remit? M1: (Talking over each other) and agree with the comments about traffic. That was one of my main comments to you and I wait to-, Gerry Lyons: Yes, there is a full discussion about traffic in the other workshop.
Page 184
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One M3: So, the detail of my question was that content but the question is, is that element in the scope of the design team? So, the school in isolation or the school within the masterplan, the masterplan is to design that factor in. Frank Farrell: We have a site, potentially (inaudible), sorry, so we’ve got to make that work, if that’s the chosen site. What we then do, as I say, is liaise with BAE to see what impact that might have on their masterplan. That will be fed on from Alistair’s team back to BAE, through planning. We can’t, obviously, build the roads, separate roads outwith, we can maybe influence it, we can advise what we think is going to work following feedback from the community but we probably haven’t got, as you say, the gift to actually physically make changes until BAE sign it off. So, we need to consider everything you’re saying, take account of it just as Gerry says, discussions regarding the layout, the plan, that is probably the point that we have a better point to say, ‘Right, this doesn’t work, that works,’ and then take that back to Alistair’s team to work with BAE. Chris Dalrymple: Sorry, Gerry. Gerry Lyons: Yes, Chris, on you go. Chris Dalrymple: Can I very quickly come in there? So, one of the key things is, we’ll be working very closely with Gerry Hannah, who’s next door, and his team. So, yes, Frank’s team and my team will be responsible for designing the building, building the bricks and mortar, but we can’t do that in isolation. We need to take in cognizance with Gerry to say, from a planning position, ‘We need to think about roads, we need to think about the drop-off.’ So, it’s a bit of both, we need that design work in there to make sure the pick-ups, the drop-offs, the car parking spaces, everything linked to our colleagues in Roads will be part of that planning discussion. We just can’t answer part of the section 75 stuff, next door, because it’s Alistair and Gerry but there will be that very close working relationship between us and Gerry Hannah, and the team who are next door. Gerry Lyons: Yes. Gillian Hoyle: Thank you. M4: Sorry, before you start speaking, shall we just keep that microphone and you keep that one? Gillian Hoyle: Yes, you keep that. Gerry Lyons: Aye, we’re going to keep one here. M4: Saves having them-, Gerry Lyons: Although I’ve now got 5,000 steps on my pedometer that I didn’t have before I came, yes, good shout. Gillian Hoyle: So, I know that there was some discussion a while back about a proposed campus to include more nursery space and more high school space. What is the estimated cost for this new primary school to be built? Gerry Lyons: The estimated cost of the new primary school?
Page 185
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gillian Hoyle: Yes. Gerry Lyons: 45 million. Gillian Hoyle: And what about the extension to Park Mains? Gerry Lyons: 30 million. Gillian Hoyle: Why is there not an option to choose one of the larger sites to have a larger campus? Because as the projections look, we’re due to be at capacity in eight years at Park Mains, even with the extension. Gerry Lyons: Yes, so the answer to your question’s got different parts to it, and some of them are about the planning of secondary education. One of the answers to the question is a financial one, you’re talking about 75 million, the building of a campus as you’ve described is closer to 90 million. So, there is a financial element to that, the other element to it-, Gillian Hoyle: Rather than wasting 70 million. Gerry Lyons: Sorry? Gillian Hoyle: Rather than spending 70 odd million and still being at capacity, and having no high school for any local (talking over each other). Gerry Lyons: Yes, that’s not what we intend though. Gillian Hoyle: Yes, so what’s the plan? Gerry Lyons: Our understanding is, and all our projections at the moment, we will build to a capacity of 2,000 in Park Mains. Gillian Hoyle: Yes. Gerry Lyons: There’s a bit of flex in that, it might go up to 2,050. Gillian Hoyle: I think the numbers actually didn’t even include the new houses in Erskine that are getting built as well. Gerry Lyons: Yes, well, if you just let me finish, I’ll try and cover all of that for you. So, we’re looking at 2,000, all of our projections say that that will be sufficient for Park Mains and to meet the community which Park Mains serves, which is much greater than Dargavel, it serves seven different learning communities. So, one of our concerns is to ensure that the Dargavel solution does not negatively impact on those other learning communities, who have also got a very strong view as to what should happen. We believe that the capacity of Park Mains will be sufficient, if we find there are circumstances which suggest that it’s not going to be, that would not be a matter of looking at Park Mains again to try to make it even bigger. That would then be a wider estate management plan, so for example, if there was planning in Erskine, one of the changes in the process now is that the planning team come to Children’s Services, and ask the question about, ‘If this planning was to be granted, is there sufficient education infrastructure to meet it?’ We have the option of saying, ‘No,’ and that would then lead to a planning refusal. David: Gerry, that goes completely against Scottish Government policy.
Page 186
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gerry Lyons: Well, all I’m saying is, that’s one of the processes that we’ve got. F3: It goes against what you’ve done to date, which is to-, Gerry Lyons: Aye, the Scottish Government might overrule that-, F3: Even Renfrewshire Council, we asked you last time to put a hold on development that goes ahead within Dargavel during one of the last sessions, and you did not. You continued to develop, you continued to approve plans. Gerry Lyons: When was that? F3: Six months, nine months ago. Gerry Lyons: Right, okay, but if those developments do happen, so if David’s position comes to pass and the Scottish Government say, ‘You can’t do that, you need to grant planning permission,’ you will then move into a much wider estate management, an education estate management at that end, to accommodate those new houses in Erskine. David, if you just let me finish, thank you. So, we believe that, and all of our planning is very much based on the fact that, this community will be served, efficiently, appropriately and to a high quality by Park Mains, and anything that would impact beyond that will be dealt with by a different solution. Gillian Hoyle: But only until eight years’ time and then we’re over capacity. Gerry Lyons: No, absolutely not. Gillian Hoyle: So, where do the kids go when it’s over 2,000? Gerry Lyons: Our projections, and I’m going to come back to projections in a minute-, Gillian Hoyle: Yes, which to be fair (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Our projections, and this is not what this consultation’s about, I’m going to do more on this, our projections say that it will not go over 2,000 to a point that we have to look at putting children elsewhere. The other point is that projections being what they are, the further you go, the less reliable they become. So, we’re going to monitor the actual rolls in the school at two separate occasions, we’re going to monitor them after census, and we’re going to monitor them after enrolment figures. That’s twice in the year, and that twice in the year will allow us to have live data to match to the projections to make decisions about what else we need to do. Gillian Hoyle: But then do we run into the same issue, where it’s too late to do something about, like we did with this primary school and-, Gerry Lyons: No, we won’t run into that issue because sitting alongside that is discussions we are having at the moment about thresholds, and the thresholds of, ‘When is the latest point we can make a decision?’ So we don’t run into what happened here, and we’ve got no intention of running into what happened here. F3: What’s the contingency if-, and we know that we’ve been told that the projections don’t include some developments in Erskine, so what is the
Page 187
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One contingency if Park Mains hits capacity? It would be that then our choice as parents is removed about what high school they go to. Gerry Lyons: No. F3: Where you said at the beginning it’s not fair for parents who have been part of a ballot (Timecode: 00:30:00), there is the potential that that’s going to happen when the kids go to high school. Gerry Lyons: Yes, we have got no indications to say that’s going to be the case, and we do not want people who were in a ballot in primary one to be in a ballot in S1, that would be thoroughly inappropriate. We have no indications in any of the planning that we have done-, and I appreciate for this community that’s something that’s hard to take a leap of faith on, and I’m not asking you to. David: You failed in the past, Gerry, you failed badly in the past. Gerry Lyons: We have. David: We, as a community, are telling you what you need to do, and the bottom line is, we need a secondary school in this community, then you would have three secondary schools, Gryffe, Park Mains and here. And you wouldn’t have an over-capacity at Park Mains because you could allow building to happen in Erskine. Gerry Lyons: Yes, we’re not going to have an over-capacity in Park Mains, and actually that masterplan that David put together, ten, fifteen years ago, would have been potentially a different conversation. But one of the things that’s not been factored in, by you David, actually, is the fact that Park Mains secondary school has got a capacity for 1,400 young people. David: Correct. Gerry Lyons: If you just let me finish, David, if that’s okay. 1,400 young people, they currently have that capacity, the plan that David puts together significantly affects that school. It takes the numbers of that school down to much less than its capacity, affecting the children at that school, affecting those communities. Those communities have already written to the Council to express their concern that that’s even being considered and leading to a situation where we have built a school for 1,400 and we’ve got 800 children in it. That would just be poor practice on our part. Gillian Hoyle: Well, the projections for this August is that you’re already over the 1,400 for Park Mains anyway, so. Gerry Lyons: Yes. Gillian Hoyle: So, how are you planning to look after those kids then, if your capacity-, Gerry Lyons: We’ve got a modular classroom already been put into Park Mains. Gillian Hoyle: So, but this is growing and growing the next few years-, Gerry Lyons: The other thing you’ve not factored in-, Gillian Hoyle: Sorry, if you can just let me finish.
Page 188
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gerry Lyons: Yes, sure, sorry. Gillian Hoyle: This is growing and growing over the next few years, so if you don’t have any capacity for them, like, what is our option? I have two children, currently in primary one and primary two, and by your projections, Park Mains is going to be too big by the time we get to that stage. Gerry Lyons: I don’t know where you’re getting that from, to be honest with you. Gillian Hoyle: Julie Calder is where I got the information. Gerry Lyons: If the projections, for example, take you to 2200, what’s in those projections at the moment is placing requests. One of the options we have that if there comes a point where we think that placing requests are negatively impacting on a catchment area, we then refuse those placing requests. So, any figure there already includes placing requests, 160, roughly and they would all be refused to ensure that it does not impact on the children for whom that’s a catchment school. Gillian Hoyle: You’re saying that the capacity at the moment is 1,400 and that Erskine community is unhappy that that would drop to 800 but if you were to build a new high school it’s going to obviously take an amount of years for that to happen. So, surely at that stage there are changes you can make to Park Mains, you can make it more community based, have more space for the community, whilst we’re building a school that we clearly need in this area. Gerry Lyons: To be honest with you, I don’t know. You’ve got a 1,400 school that’s got education facility for 1,400 young people, classrooms etc. We do not need to do anything to that building apart from add an extension, to meet our statutory requirements, which is to fulfil the catchment demand for that school, and we believe the plans we’ve got are going to allow us to do that. Gillian Hoyle: So, you can guarantee that there’s going to be capacity? Gerry Lyons: I don’t give guarantees, one of the big errors that this Council made was giving guarantees. What I’m saying to you is, with what I know at the moment, I am confident that we are not going to find ourselves in a situation, where, as you’ve described, you can’t get your child into the school in first year, that’s your catchment school. F3: It’s tricky though because we’re getting mixed messages, only at a meeting six months ago Julie Calder did say that Park Mains would reach capacity in six months, sorry, in eight years. So, I’m struggling, she’s obviously looking at the same numbers as you-, Gerry Lyons: Yes, so two things about that, one is that it won’t go beyond capacity, two, we’ve not factored in the placing request issue-, F3: 160’s not going to make a difference. Gerry Lyons: It is. Gillian Hoyle: But you also didn’t factor in the new housing in Erskine that’s been approved. (Various voices join in about the Erskine development.)
Page 189
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gerry Lyons: That peak issue only lasts for a short space of time and it then it starts to come back down. So, we’ve got plans in place for all of that, we’re confident that what we’ve got in place will deliver the secondary education that you need. We will have further discussions about this once we move beyond the statutory consultation on the primary, which is what we’re here for. David: Yes, but it’s meant to be happening in 2027. F3: There are options. David: Park Mains is meant to be happening by 2027. Gerry Lyons: Yes, it is. David: So, why not spend the 30 million here rather than in Erskine? M5: I think in the background of what people are saying there, I think a good question to ask would be, ‘How are the Council and the Council officers going to be held accountable for the process that we’re going through just now?’ Gerry Lyons: So, I can understand the question, one of the things about this process, and I’ve said this right from the start, and I’ll say it again tonight, is that I am the named person for this. I am leading this process, I am leading this consultation, and I believe we’re doing the right thing so I will hold myself accountable for that, and I will invite you to hold me accountable if, in fact, what I say to you is what we’re going to deliver, we don’t deliver. M5: What will be the mechanism for that? What will be the mechanism for holding you accountable? Gerry Lyons: The mechanism? M5: Yes. Gerry Lyons: Yes, well, as with everything, if I don’t do the work that I’m meant to do and I get it wrong, then there would be disciplinary procedures, performance management, all of those things that I would be subject to. But do you know what, more importantly than that, I would be subject to myself saying, ‘I thought I was going to do something and I got it right.’ M5: Would you resign? Gerry Lyons: I would have resigned, yes, and I would resign. M5: Because it’s that accountability that, as a community, I think is lacking from the lessons learned. Gerry Lyons: Yes, I’ve already said that this is important enough to me that I will put my reputation on the line to say, ‘I’m going to deliver this.’ If I don’t deliver it, or I make a complete mess of it, God forbid I don’t do either of the two of them, then I would go, ‘Aye, fair do’s,’ and I would walk away. M5: You don’t need to do that, so it shows that you’re motivated and driven to achieve that, but for me, whilst it’s nice to hear that, we need to have something more than just you and your reputation. Because I was here ten
Page 190
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One years ago and I was sold the dream of one school for all, because I didn’t like the idea of two schools. I certainly don’t like the idea of three because of, just, the rivalry between them. So, to get to the, ‘Sold the dream, buy the house, build and live in a community,’ a community which is pretty much divided by a railway line that really annoys me. ‘We’re all in this together,’ we’re not, it’s either Dargavel or Bishopton, to me, it’s one. The third school is creating a bit of strength between everybody that it impacts but at the same time, it’s driving a bit more of a divide. So, the Council are front and centre for driving the success. Gerry Lyons: Yes, absolutely, and I’m going to say two things to you about that. One is, never at any point am I going to ask this community to put their faith in anything I actually say, because why would you? What you need to see is action, you need to see transparent communication throughout the process, responsiveness to issues that have been raised, and some of those have been raised tonight, and that will be that. Building trust back with this community’s not going to take one statutory consultation, building trust back with this community’s going to take five years of delivering what we said we’d deliver. So, no, I don’t want you to think I’m saying that, you know, ‘I will be accountable so trust me,’ I don’t want you to do that. What I want you to do is to watch the actions, watch the behaviours, watch the processes and engage with them as fully as you can, as you’ve done tonight, which is brilliant, and we will help grow it and respond to things. It will only be at that point, at the end of it, that you can say to me, ‘Gerry, aye, do you know what,’ or, ‘Gerry, I told you that you were getting it wrong.’ But I don’t want trust in people, I want systems and structures that are tight, that you can look at and go, ‘Aye, that looks robust and that looks as though it’s going to drive-,’ I take your point about the community, I do. David: Can I make a comment that, since you came on board, since Janie’s about, there has been a hell of a lot more consultation than there ever was in the past. But the problem is, you’ve still got Councillors there who think the way ahead is the way it’s been going. I’m sorry, I saw two Education Board meetings where politics came into the exercise. You guys can’t touch that, you have to accept what they decide. So, this meeting that’s going to happen in whatever time it is-, Gerry Lyons: May 25th. David: That’s why I asked the question, is it going to be just the Education Board or is it going to be the whole Council? I’m sorry, the Education Board has been culpable in a lot of the problems that this community is experiencing, and from that point of view we need to see a bit of a sea change in the whole attitude to how the provision of education, and leisure and recreation-, twenty-minute rule, out the window, you know, three to eighteen provision, out the window. We’re now seeing a huge focus on primary education (Timecode 00:40:00), and that is very important, and that has to happen, but the bottom line comes, the next phase, which is secondary education, and there’s been a huge silence on that because the Education Board do not
Page 191
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One want to see any change. Now, the bottom line is, the process for child education is for children and communities, not for the accountants, and that’s something that’s got to be borne in mind throughout all of this exercise. You failed badly in this community, Renfrewshire Council has got a big task to pick up in getting it right this time. Gerry Lyons: Thanks David and I’m just going to note those comments. I suppose, the only one I would come back on is the issue about for the community, not for the accountants, and if I lived in this community I’d be saying the same. I have a fiscal responsibility, I don’t have a blank cheque, I don’t have an opportunity to spend as much as, you know, whatever. I have to work within a budget and I have responsibility to the whole Council around that. That’s the only issue I would pick up but I do take your point about the politicians. I’ve heard you saying it before and I completely understand why you feel that way. M4: I was just going to ask, so August 2027 is the hard objective time that we’re trying to achieve. So, site nine is what has been proposed and that’s going forward in the consultation and the proposal. If we say no to that, beyond that, that timeframe’s gone, we can’t achieve that. Gerry Lyons: No. M4: So, really the consultation isn’t about the proposal of where it is because we’re beyond that, because we all have kids that we want to get into primary school or primary one for August 2027. So, we have to really accept that, is what I’m trying to clarify. We’re accepting it’s site nine and we’re moving forward and we need to use the opportunity now to make sure that we achieve the-, Gerry Lyons: The timeline. M4: The timeline, and not make the mistakes as we had with this one, which is I know is what we’re trying to achieve. But a lot of good points have been raised about, like, the figures for the schools and stuff like that, so my question really is, is this going to really be achievable in the timeframe? And then are we, like the lady over there said, going to be in eight years’ time, where we’re hoping-, some of us are hoping to stay here for the rest of our lives or for a long period of time. Is that really going to be achievable? Because for some of us, we’re actually considering whether the next year’s going to be worth staying here because (talking over each other). Gerry Lyons: Aye, of course, because at the end of the day, you’ve got to make the right decision for your child, haven’t you? So, I’m happy to come back and have further discussion about Park Mains, and I know you’re very concerned about it, and I want to have further discussion with you about it. The primary perspective, the team, we know it’s tight but we believe we’re going to deliver it. We also know the imperative that’s on us to deliver it for the children in the area and for the community. So, we believe we can do that, we set out to do it, and everything we’re doing is around that timeline. We are going to start conversations very soon about, ‘What if it looks as though it’s slipping a wee bit? What can we do to, kind of, buy ourselves some time?’ That’s a different part of the conversation.
Page 192
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One M4: Sorry, Gerry, can you quantify how it is if we say no to the proposed site? It’s off the online or the forms that we’ve sent in? Gerry Lyons: Yes. M4: So, are you legally obliged to say no if-, how many people is it (talking over each other). Gerry Lyons: Well, it’s not got a, kind of, X% type thing, it’s about the way and the range of views. If we get a position that we do not think supports our position, we have to present that to the board to say, ‘This is not a supported proposal,’ and then they would make a decision one way or another. Then, potentially, it’s back to looking at another site or another plan, or-, M4: That will increase the costs because we’ve already got the site and we’ve got it for how we’ve got it. Gerry Lyons: Not necessarily increase the costs but certainly would lead to a slippage in time. M4: Right, anyone else got a question? Gerry Lyons: Okay folks, I’m conscious that it’s the worst chaired workshop in the world, it was supposed to finish at 7:55. I’m going to take one more question and then we’ll swap round but you can come back with things you’ve not had a chance to ask at the very end. Gillian Hoyle: I’m going to come back to Park Mains, I’m sorry. I have asked this and you know at the last two consultations I’ve been at, and I’m yet to hear a clear answer on what’s going to happen for Park Mains. We, as a community, need to know what’s going to happen in secondary school (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Your children will go to Park Mains secondary school. Gillian Hoyle: We said this about Dargavel (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Your children-, Gillian Hoyle: I’m sorry, and I get that you are a different community to who you were before, from Renfrewshire Council. You have told us all this before, we are sitting here, how many people have mentioned Park Mains high school to you? I have mentioned it at each of my sessions that I’ve come to and I’ve still not got an answer, I need an answer, we need an answer. Gerry Lyons: So, two things about that, one is, this is a statutory consultation on a proposal for primary education. Gillian Hoyle: We’ve lost that battle, we lost that a long time ago. Gerry Lyons: I don’t think so, I think we’ll recover that and I think you’ll end up with the-, the plan for this school is outstanding. This is going to be an outstanding primary school. F3: There is no plan, there’s a plot, a slight plot, there’s no plan.
Page 193
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gerry Lyons: Yes, well, let me change it slightly then. The intent for this primary school is an outstanding primary school. F3: This one. Gerry Lyons: Across the two schools. But listen, I understand why you don’t believe me when I say that and I’m not asking you to-, F3: You use the word believe an awful lot, I don’t believe you are SQEP to do this role. Like, it is infuriating sitting here, this lady-, Gerry Lyons: You don’t believe I’m? F3: SQEP, I don’t think you’re suitably qualified to be in this role. This lady has expressed a number of times how upset she is and yet you’re palming everyone off. You could at least acknowledge-, Gerry Lyons: Sorry, I don’t intend palm anyone off and I’m sorry you don’t feel I’m qualified for the role. Again, I’m-, F3: You use the word believe continuously, you might believe that aliens are going to come and build the school, we’re not having it. Gerry Lyons: I’m going to disagree with you, what I’m going to say to you is, the conversation about Park Mains is a separate conversation which will happen at a separate time. F3: Not really when we’re looking at a site-, Gillian Hoyle: It’s not, exactly, this goes back to the campus we spoke about earlier. Gerry Lyons: Yes, but just in terms of the process, this is a statutory consultation on the primary proposal. I will happily come back with much more detail about Park Mains and much more discussion about Park Mains once this process is finished. But to some extent, you have to allow us to do what we’re setting out to do now, and then we will come back on the Park Mains issues much more. F3: But it’s related. Gerry Lyons: I’m sorry you don’t feel I’m qualified for the job, I just have to respect that, I’m surrounded by outstandingly qualified people. In terms of secondary education, I was a secondary Head Teacher for thirteen years, so whether that qualifies me or not, I don’t know. F3: So, you know how to run a school and educate children, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re very good at town planning. Gerry Lyons: I’m not doing the planning, it’s my planning colleagues that are doing the planning and they’ll talk to you next door. Gillian Hoyle: Can I come back to your point on Park Mains and why we’re talking about this just now? Gerry Lyons: Yes, of course you can.
Page 194
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session One Gillian Hoyle: One of the things that was proposed by the community was a campus that includes a high school and primary school, hence why we are bringing this up just now and want answers. But you are pushing that down the line and you’re not answering it, and that’s why-, Gerry Lyons: No, I’m not pushing it down the line, I’m telling you straight, Gillian, the answer is Park Mains secondary school. Gillian Hoyle: None of us-, F3: That’s on record, we’ll just list all our children and it’s on record they’ll go to Park Mains. Gerry Lyons: I just said to you that-, ?: (inaudible) Gerry Lyons: All our projections tell us that we will meet the secondary requirements of this community in Park Mains secondary school. F1: And see all the figures that (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: We will continue to monitor that to make sure that we do but that’s what all our projections are telling us. F1: Is that you guys that are going to monitor it or is it all going to be independently reviewed? Because you obviously mucked it up royally the last time. Gerry Lyons: Yes, true, we are working with independent consultants. F1: So, you believe that your figures will be-, Gillian Hoyle: So, have you given us a guarantee? You said you don’t give guarantees. Have I got a guarantee that my daughter will get into Park Mains? I would want that in writing. Gerry Lyons: What I’m saying is-, M5: He’s going to resign, if he doesn’t-, Various voices talking over each other. Gillian Hoyle: I’m sure we’ve heard that one before as well. Gerry Lyons: The planning is on the basis that secondary education will be provided by Park Mains. If it starts to look as though that’s not the case, we will of course come back and tell you what the situation is and why. Gillian Hoyle: So, there’s not a guarantee? Okay. Gerry Lyons: Yes, okay, listen, thank you everyone, I’m sorry, I have to swap people round. I can get your question at the very end. I’m going to go next door, you all stay here and we’ll send the team in here, thank you. Recording ends.
Page 195
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 Alasdair Morrison: Gerry Hannah: M3: F3: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: I think we’re about good to go if everybody is back in the room. I’m sure you’re all warmed up after that first session with colleagues. So, the purpose of this second group, we’ll introduce ourselves in a second, is to talk about site location and transport particularly. So, what we’re aiming to do is, if you’ve got specific questions, we’ll try and deal with as many of these as we can within the allotted time, which is round about 30 minutes. We’re on record again, which you’ll have noticed from the first session. We’ll try and fit in as many people as possible, so if it feels as if a conversation’s going on for quite a time, we’ll try and break away from that to try and give as many people as possible a chance to as the questions they want to ask, to be as fair as possible. So, I’ll introduce myself first, I recognise a lot of faces from the information evenings before, I’m Alasdair Morrison, I’m the Council’s Head of Economy and Development, and I’m responsible for, amongst other things, planning and building control, land, property estates and such like. I’ll let my colleague here, Gerry, introduce himself. Thanks very much Alasdair , for those I haven’t met over the course of the evenings here, my name’s Gerry Hannah, I’m the Council’s Head of Climate, Public Protection and Roads, so that covers the, kind of, roads infrastructure, transport, active travel in and around the school. But obviously, if there are questions about the existing school, the new school and the, kind of, wider development, we can try and pick up on those at the same time. I think how we ran the session next door, and I’m not sure how the session you’ve just had run in here was, we basically just opened the floor up to questions from yourselves, tried to get round as many people, as Alasdair said, within the time we have. If anybody feels they wanted to ask a question but maybe they didn’t want to ask it in a bigger group setting, if they want to just catch either maybe Alasdair or myself after it, and ask it on an individual basis, then obviously we’re happy to do that, because not everybody feels comfortable in doing these things in a group setting at times. So, really, over to yourselves. Have we lost one of the mics? Oh no, it’s here. Just so we don’t have to yo yo again. We’ve silenced you right away (Laughter). Just to save us getting the steps. I’m going to digress a little bit because Alasdair , you said Head of Planning, is that right? Yes. Why are we not following the RIBA plan of works for the programme? I raised that question in the last session and the answer was a bit woolly, so your detailed planning is before starting on site by three months, why is not the RIBA plan of works? You’re following the Hub process to procure it, so it should be aligned to RIBA. Yes, I think where that’s come from-, I’ve had that question raised before but I think it’s because what’s been presented here, in the programme timeline,
Page 196
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 in the documents is a more generic-, I mean, it’s been done in a sequential way to make it look as if you’re working your way through the maze but in reality, there will be a number of things happening at the same time. But the process that we will follow will be along the lines of the RIBA process that you’re referring to. It maybe doesn’t come across like that in the way that it’s set out there. We talked about the programme before, there’s plenty of excess in there, I’m not going to go over that again because you can get that in the transcript. But, Head of Planning, your planning process would be before building work, and you’d expect to see that when you’re doing your detail, to start following the process and getting the engagement and the statutory consents. The Hub model is predicated by the RIBA plan of work, so you’d want to get that before you start getting your approvals to proceed as a design team and contractor. Yes. But that programme is the complete opposite. So, where are you picking up on-, do you want to pick up specifics in terms of (talking over each other) what you think-, March 2025, planning application, July ’25 start on site. That’s three months, okay the duration for planning if it all goes well is fine but your sequence of actually putting your detailed planning in is right at the very end. No, I don’t think it is, so the thing is, I don’t think when that’s come across-, I think that’s the approval of the planning application, I don’t think that’s the submission of the planning application. I think it’s, again, this way of trying to show it in a, if you’ll forgive me, in a sequential manner to make the dates, but in reality, a lot of these things will be overlapping and running in parallel, that would be my interpretation of it, in terms of trying to show-, I would expect it to be a year before, and yes, you could rejig that, but you’d be able to save about six months to nine months in that programme by actually looking at it in detail. Well, I guess, what we’ve done with this programme is to build in a degree of contingency to make sure that we can still deliver by the date that we’re aiming for which is, as you heard from Gerry, August 2027. Yes, we’ve covered it. I mean, you don’t want to condense and concertina everything, and then find that at the last minute we’re not able to achieve it, because as you heard from Gerry, that wouldn’t be a great scenario for us to be in. M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: It would be a riot, I think, and I mean that in the sense of we would be a mob-handed riot, not as in having a party, just to make that clear. This one, I asked a question in the last session and I was asked to bring it to this one instead. My question is a two-parter, so I asked in the last session about the design remit of the consultants. Are they designing a school in isolation or are they designing a school within the definition of the masterplan? The
Page 197
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 reason I asked the question is, a school in isolation, fine, it shouldn’t be, it should be within the definition of the masterplan, the reason I ask that is because of the implications to transport. Right now, there is an issue with buses, there are no lay-bys, there’s nowhere for them to stop really, even outside the school here, it’s on the road, not off the road. For an additional school within a stone’s throw, because we aren’t getting a different site, we’re getting that site, how are all the additional transport requirements going to be taken into cognizance? Especially given that we’re not fully developed out as a masterplan, the reason I’m asking is, proportionality of the section 75, half of that main artery hasn’t been built yet, the design is up for grabs. Can we not, as an opportunity to learn from the lessons of shoehorning things in, look at the integration to the wider community and factor in the buses, the cars, the active travel and all the things that we need to do to make it successful and lighten the load and pressure from this school, which is just down the road from it? Alasdair Morrison: I’ll let Gerry pick up on that but we had a very useful meeting to that effect with BAE just last week, so. Gerry Hannah: Right, thanks very much for that, a really good question. I’m not sure whether you’ve been to any of the information evenings before so, if I’m about to repeat myself please tell me. So, on the boards next door, and you’ll maybe get a chance to have a look before you leave this evening, obviously some of the information’s in here but it’s maybe easier to see on a larger scale, one of the things we’ve concluded so far is, getting a transport consultant in to speak to us at an early stage. So, we realise obviously, as part of the consultation we’re taking forward a proposed site for the consultation, at that point we engaged with a transport consultant, just to do some early work, early prep work for us and not-, so outwith the scope of a transport assessment to accompany the planning application, just to give us a, kind of, early head’s up in terms of the kinds of things that we should be looking out for. Some great points you made there in terms of the road and influencing the infrastructure yet to come because that was one of the key things that they picked up in terms of active travel corridors and wider, shared walking and cycling routes, and how we can deliver that working in partnership with BAE. That’s going to be a big focus for us going forward, so obviously yes, the pick- up and drop-off at the schools, those kinds of things. With the greatest will in the world this isn’t all going to be solved by active travel and we’re not silly enough to try and think that’s going to be the case but that’s going to be a big focus, on how we can encourage that as much as we possibly can. Big credit to the school, the staff here, the pupils, the parents who support active travel existing at this school, it’s the highest percentage active travel at any school across Renfrewshire. So, that’s a real positive-, F2: It's not a choice, it’s a necessity so that we don’t crash or kill children on the way to school. Gerry Hannah: Yes, I appreciate that and what we’d be looking to do is continue to work with this school and the new school in terms of the school travel plans and
Page 198
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 M3: Gerry Hannah: Alasdair Morrison: M6: Alasdair Morrison: Gillian Hoyle: Gerry Hannah: how we can make that as successful as we possibly can. But all of the points you’ve raised in there are things that we will be working with, with BAE and the plans going forward. The active travel aspect’s part of your net zero strategy, so I understand the net zero strategy and your active travel but the active travel isn’t working. My daughter goes to this school, she is incredibly upset when there are awards being given for park and walk. I don’t park and walk, I’ve got work to get to. She is my priority in life but I’m here for 7:45, eight o’clock every day dropping her off, it’s okay at that time of day but see if you come ten, fifteen minutes later, it gets difficult. If you come about half an hour after that, it’s almost impossible and if you’re close to nine o’clock, there’s no way you’re getting to work on time. Active travel is a joke, we’re a fair-weather community on the west coast of Scotland, if it’s great and it’s sunny we’ll walk, if it’s wet, no way in hell, and if it’s snowing, no chance. It can’t be based on policies that are written for the UK and Scotland wide, it has to be something fit for purpose for this community, and active travel is not that. No, and again, we accept that that’s not going to be the single solution. As I said, it would be silly of us to sit here and think that was going to be the one stop shop to solve all of our problems, it’s not, it’s about how we make the school as connected as possible but recognising that there are other solutions at play as well. So, as Alasdair said, looking at the pick-up, drop- off facilities. We appreciate there is a peak in the morning, the peak’s probably spread out a lot more in the morning than it is in the afternoon and the afternoon’s probably a, kind of, more condensed peak, and that’s the stuff we’ve started working with the school and Parent Council on, on how we can try and bring solutions to the table for that as well. Sorry, the lady next you has maybe just got a question, while we’re here. That gentleman there next with the pen. It is a follow on from that question. Sorry, no, we’ll go there first (Timecode 00:10:00) and then we’ll come to you. Sorry, it is my last one, I know that I-, with all the research that’s been done is there going to be any retro work done to this school? Because that only walking path in from one side of the village is awful, it’s dangerous, there are children getting knocked over, there are people with prams getting pushed out of the way, there are bikes, scooters up your ankles. There are children getting injured and hurt, it’s not safe. So, with all the work that’s being done on this proposal, what is the plan to make this area safe? Okay, that’s a really good point and something Alasdair and I met with BAE last week to talk around, the existing infrastructure and what we can look at. So, the transport consultant is not only looked at future improvements and the, kind of, new school coming on board, but actually, ‘What can we improve existing-infrastructure-wise?’ The path network around the school was an area that’s flagged up as an area to for us to work with BAE on. Just for clarity, there is a very small amount of the road network here that the
Page 199
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 Council are responsible for, it’s still in the developer’s hands, and that’s something the Council obviously looks to adopt, the road, when the developer says it’s ready for adoption. So, that’s a process we work through with BAE and we’ll continue to do so. Kevin from the Parent Council has flagged up what I would term the, kind of, remote path to link the school to the-, Gillian Hoyle: The path that comes through the park. Gerry Hannah: Yes, and that’s an area that we want to follow up as a priority in terms of, there was a previous suggestion that the whole path network was three metres wide, there’s no way the whole path network is three metres wide, that’s the, kind of, standard we want to see. So, we recognise there are some pinch points, some pinch locations on the route there-, Gillian Hoyle: Is that bit owned by the Council currently? Has that been handed over? Gerry Hannah: No. Gillian Hoyle: Could you not hold them responsible for (talking over each other) Gerry Hannah: So, that’s for us to work with BAE on and see how we can actually improve the infrastructure that’s existing up to a standard that we’d want to adopt. Gillian Hoyle: So, BAE have a really high safety policy and that’s one of their critical actions, I’m quite sure if it’s highlighted that there are children getting injured, it’s going to be quite an important one for them. Gerry Hannah: Yes, and Kevin, to be fair, has been highlighting that to BAE at the joint meetings we’ve had with them and the Parent Council, and it is an area we will take forward. We’re working with (inaudible) on this at the moment, what improvements are required for this school, what needs to be designed into the new school, and what happens along that western link road, so we are working-, (talking over each other) a responsibility of getting children into this school safely regardless of who owns the street or the road, so-, Absolutely. This gentleman here. So, my quick question was, you said it’s the highest percentage of active transport at this school, what is that percentage, and what is the Council average? What would you be projecting it to be for the new school? I’m assuming it would be no more or equal to the average for the whole area, for the whole Council. So, I don’t have the exact figures to hand but I think, off the top of my head, the figures were around 62.9%. For here? Louisa Mahon: Gillian Hoyle: Various voices: Alasdair Morrison: M6: Gerry Hannah: M6: Gerry Hannah: For here, yes, I don’t have the exact figures to hand and I’d need to double check that, so don’t quote me on that and I’ll be able to confirm the figures.
Page 200
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 That was, from memory, a couple of percentage points higher than the closest school. So, that’s something that we would look at as a minimum standard going forward now, because we’ve been really successful and the kids have been really successful in really promoting that. We recognise that won’t be every single day in November and December. We’re not, again, silly enough to think that’s going to be the case either. But we want to provide opportunities as much as possible. If anyone has looked at the bike sheds outside here in the morning, they are absolutely jam packed and we’ve worked with the school in providing additional infrastructure, and that’s what we would do with any new school location as well. Regardless of what site it was, we would work with the school in terms of identifying what infrastructure would make it as successful as possible for active travel. M6: Thank you. M5: So, you’ve touched upon the provision of transportation getting into this school, obviously it’s a bit of an issue, particularly I see, around the intersection between Slateford Road and Craigton. It’s a bit crazy in the morning, so, it’s already like that, we’ve got buses taking people to Park Mains, buses taking people, I would assume, into Renfrew, to Trinity, and we’ve got buses taking people elsewhere. What are we going to do when we add another school into that mix? Is there going to be any retroactive work to the existing infrastructure, to-, do you know what I mean? You’re never going to get a bus down the road, down Slateford in the morning, to get to a new school because you can’t get a car down there in the morning. So, what’s going to be done to address that? M4: Especially with having 1,500 more-, M5: Exactly, yes, because-, Gerry Hannah: Yes, so, again, really good points. So, the work we’ve been doing at the earliest stage just now, is purely focused on the new school for now, it’s then about taking that work and taking that much wider. So, within the programme you’ll see obviously it refers to a planning application, within that planning application process we would be doing a transport assessment that looks at the transport in the widest possible sense. It’s not just about walking and wheeling to and from school, but the reason for getting the transport consultant on board so early with us, is so that we can do quite a lot of that work in advance. We don’t want to wait for a planning application to then tell us, ‘Here’s what you need to do in a relatively short period of time.’ We’re trying to get as much of that early work done that we possibly can. So, if you look at the junction capacity for instance, the junction at the bottom of the road, the traffic signals junction there, that operates at about 60% capacity, which is really, really low, really low for a, kind of, urban type junction arrangement. So, what we know is, we’ve got plenty of capacity there, ‘Right, okay, so where else is a concern?’ This transport consultant will tell us where else the concern is. The example you’ve used there of buses being on the road, ‘How many buses are there going to be?’ That transport
Page 201
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 modelling, telling us where the buses are going to be going, those are the next, kind of, steps of work that we’ll be looking to take forward. M5: What, realistically, can you do? Because it’s a canyon, Slateford Road’s a canyon, there are houses either side of it. There is nowhere to put buses unless you drop the kids at the top of Slateford Road and expect-, David: (talking over each other) don’t have a secondary school in Erskine (inaudible). I’m sorry, it comes back, it comes back, how long is it going to be? This gentleman here was going to ask a question. A few weeks ago, my wife and I passed the front of the school and we met our local police officer who was there advising some order into the drop-off location. He said he was concerned about the safety issues, so I knew I was coming to these meetings and so, a few weeks hence I decided, I might even have been watching your car, I don’t know. I stood-, it’s okay. I decided to look at what was happening, so I was there round about, maybe a wee bit after you, at 8:15. There were two cars on the east side-, no, no, the south side, you guys have got this north and south, east, west rubbish. Anyway, I think it’s the south side, two cars. By the time 8:55 came, there were 25 cars and then the people have got to stop when the other one’s coming the other way, the bus is there. What we have in Bishopton, in the existing school in Old Greenock Road, it’s like the dodgems sometimes. What has been created for this school is exactly the same thing, it’s not any different. So, I, kind of, thought, ‘What would be the solution?’ You mentioned lay-bys, you’ve got an undeveloped piece of land on the south side of this school, is that Renfrewshire land? The immediate acre and a half just-, Right, that would be a good site for a short stay car park. That is the proposal that we’re currently working on, I wouldn’t call it a short stay car park-, Well, I think you should work on that, that would take-, But a drop-off and pick-up location for the school. Think about the capacity that you need for that car park and that would take the cars off Arrochar Drive. Yes, it should, if it’s successfully implemented it should make a great deal of impact on that issue that you’ve raised. Whatever the location for the new school, you do the same thing. That is currently in the plans. Alasdair Morrison: M1: Alasdair Morrison: M1: Alasdair Morrison: M1: Alasdair Morrison: M1: Alasdair Morrison: M1: Alasdair Morrison: M1: So, you have the long-term car parking for teachers etc. that you have here. I might add the drop-off procedure, the cars that were coming in to Arrochar Drive, I saw them drive down into the drop-off area, they dropped their
Page 202
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 children and away they went. The bus came in, it dropped off the children and away it went. The problem was the on-street parking. Alasdair Morrison: Well, for me, you’ve highlighted one of the most significant issues, the way in which people are currently using the infrastructure is not perhaps the way it was originally designed to work. But it’s working in that way out of necessity as much as anything else, part of which is the fact that the western link road has never been completed in time for the school operating and for an awful lot of the housing being built. If that hadn’t been the case, I think we’d probably be having a slightly different discussion (Timecode: 00:20:00). M1: I notice in your documentation, the consultation documentation, that you will indeed take on board the traffic consultant and it is highly important, because once the new school’s-, all that will mean is increased cars, increased buses, it’s a problem now, it will be at least twice the problem if you introduce-, you don’t need a consultant to tell you that. F1: I’ve lost what I was going to ask because it was part of what you were saying. Oh, you were saying that the way that people are using that road isn’t the way that it was designed, how are they supposed to use it? Alasdair Morrison: Well, what I mean by that in terms of not the way that they’re using it, is that if the road infrastructure was all in place and Arrochar Drive was complete all the way up to meet Craigton Road-, A through road, yes, okay. F1: Alasdair Morrison: Then I don’t think people would necessarily all be looking to do a U-turn in the road and come back the same way, because they would have a different alternative road to-, That’s up to the developers then, I take it, and not the Council. F1: Alasdair Morrison: It’s up to the developer, BAE updated us at the meeting last week, Gerry, they hope to have the whole of the western link road completed by November ’25. F1: Right, okay. M5: Is the site then, position nine or whatever it is, is that not the-, sorry, is that not then just going to force more traffic onto that junction at Slateford and Craigton? You’re then going to have the added complication of people from that end trying to this school and people from this end trying to get to the new school. Or trying to get in and out of the village using-, Gerry Hannah: So, just in terms of the junction capacity, just at Craigton and Slateford there, is that what you’re reckoning will be a pinch point? M5: Well, yes, in the morning it’s carnage, there are people parked up on the pavement, you can’t see round the corner, there are cars everywhere, people everywhere, kids everywhere, buses everywhere. Gerry Hannah: Again, it’s one of those things that with the current road network not being fully complete, we really need to look at the transport modelling with the assumption that that road network is complete, and how the road network
Page 203
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 is then going to be used with that completed section. Again, junction capacity we’re not looking at being an issue for us, it’s more about, as you say, maybe the mention of things like the buses and how we can look at potential solutions that might be in place for the buses. From a wider infrastructure point of view, obviously the pick-up, the drop-off-, the parking facility, rather, at the train station and the completion of that is obviously going to be a thing that we’ll be looking for the developer to take forward as well. So, it’s not just focused on what we do about one particular junction, it’s really looking at the traffic modelling taking in the whole of the road network and what potential solutions there might be for us. Louisa Mahon: Forgive my ignorance about that particular area, but see if there were improved drop-off and pick-up facilities at this school and wherever the new school is, would that ease some of that parking you’re talking about? M5: It’s not so much about parking, it’s about through traffic and buses, and I get what you’re saying about junction capacity, I’m sure over a 24-hour period that junction is pretty lightly used but at particular peak times it’s exceptionally busy. Not just actually the junction but further up Slateford Road, we have buses that tend to hold just outside the development in the morning, that blocks that up. You get people trying to get out of the estate, they can’t get out because people are going round buses coming into the estate, you’ve then got buses stopping at various points all the way down Slateford Road, and I know it’s the same along Craigton Drive. That’s only going to get worse by adding another school in that location and even by completing that link road, that’s going to make it worse again. And there’s nothing that you can do to Slateford Road or to that junction because it’s hemmed in on all sides by houses. M4: Can I just expand on this gentleman’s point, sorry? Just because where we’re going to be putting that link road, we’re now going to be-, so at the moment they come down Slateford and turn left onto Craigton Drive, all we’re going to be doing is changing them to turn right onto Craigton Drive and go all the way along. Now we’re going to have two schools on the same road, so an 800-pupil school and 500 and whatever this one is. Then they’re all going to go down-, alright, a high percentage are all going to go down to join the motorway for the M8, to carry on to work. So, what we’re doing, that junction I think you said was 60% now, that’s a set of traffic lights that’s just going to go nuts with an extra 800-, Sorry, would people not, if they were coming from Slateford from the north end or the west end-, Depending on this gentleman’s point of view-, Would they not have the alternative of being able to come Craigton Drive as well? So, they wouldn’t have to go down by Arrochar. Alasdair Morrison: M4: Alasdair Morrison: M4: Yes, and I’m not saying everyone will, but it will be a lot quicker to carry on the road-, say they’re dropping off at the new school, site nine, if they carry on they’re going to be entering the road, Barrangary Road, to get onto the motorway a lot quicker than doing a U-turn, which we don’t really want
Page 204
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 them to do anyway because then they’ll start-, go down the road, do a U- turn and then go back round the loop of Craigton with all the speed bumps and-, Or go out by Slateford, I guess, would be the other option. Alasdair Morrison: M4: Or go out by Slateford but again, if they’re doing that and going on the M8, and going towards Glasgow, then they’re going a much longer route, which people are-, this gentleman here is trying to get to work. I go the other way, so it’s fine for me but everyone else is going to be going that direction. Alasdair Morrison: One of the things the Council would, I guess, point out, is that if the intended or proposed pick-up and drop-off facilities are there, then when people come back out of that pick-up and drop-off facility, they would have the alternative of going either way. So, they wouldn’t all necessarily go the same way, they could go the way that suits them best, the way that suits their-, M4: They would have an alternative but the large majority, in my humble opinion, would probably use the quickest route because I would, if I was going into Glasgow for work, I would use the quickest route to get there on time. All the traffic that you’re going to hit is just going to be amplified. So, I know you would have the option, you would, to go round, and you may on some days use that because it might be quicker to go round than wait in the queue at the traffic lights at the bottom of that road. But with an extra 800-, I’m not saying everyone will be using a car, but for a large majority, even if you said half, use the car-, Gerry Hannah: I appreciate that the number 800 obviously sounds an exceptionally high number. M4: I know that’s a max capacity. Gerry Hannah: Let’s assume all 100% use the car, in the worst case scenario, 800 is stretched over a longer period of time in the morning, as you highlight, with things like breakfast club, with arrivals at school tending to be more spread out. The problem, or the main pinch point we see when we’re working with the school here, is when people start arriving and doing pick-ups from 2:30 onwards. That becomes much more of a problem for us and that’s where we’re directing the transport consultant-, with the local knowledge the school and parents are giving us in terms of what they see as being the problems here. ‘Are they going to be replicated there? What can we do to minimise the chances?’ Just to give that, kind of, reassurance, and I appreciate the information that’s been given in the past and maybe there’s a lack of trust in what’s being said, and I totally understand that, and I wouldn’t try and convince you otherwise. But in terms of that junction capacity for 60% taking another 800 cars over a 45 minute window, for instance, it’s not something that’s going to max out the capacity of a traffic signal junction. It’s more about the other infrastructure that we need to look at, in terms of clearing the road space and making sure that there isn’t that congestion, people stuck behind buses and the like, and having those discussions with bus operators, that they can’t
Page 205
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 be stacking buses up in the middle of a network and causing issues. That’s for us to take away and have those conversations. This gentleman and then this lady in the grey here. Alasdair Morrison: M3: I’ll go back to my point earlier on, and it’s lessons learned and it’s what’s right for the community, and I totally agree with all the transportation issues. The school cannot be designed in isolation, that’s why I asked the question, a simple question, is the remit of the design team the school or the integration of the school? It’s very, very different, it has to be the integration of the school, it’s got to the be the wider impact of all these concerns within the community. I absolutely agree there’s got to be something done at the school, at the destination but there has to be something done throughout the masterplan. Slateford Road is a nightmare, I don’t go near it, not in the morning times, because the buses are just parked all the way up, they’ve got nowhere else to go. The problems outwith the development, ‘Don’t care about it,’ that’s what BAE think, they only care about their money, they’re developers. I don’t blame them for it, that’s just the world that they live in, that’s how they work. We have to live with this and you’re there to protect us from the developer (Timecode 00:30:00), from the people that just want to cut every corner and make it as cheap as possible because it’s all about profits. If you don’t protect us, we’re going to get worse and it’s not a threat, that’s just-, Gerry earlier on said he was going to resign if this doesn’t work, we need accountability because the Council let us down horrendously before. So, the question I got asked to bring to this one, I didn’t get to ask at the other one, I moved here ten years ago, I was sold the dream of a community with one school for all the kids to go to. That’s how I grew up, I went to a 600 capacity primary school, I had no problems with the capacity, I liked the idea of one school, one community. We’re now having three schools, that’s horrendous, the politics between those schools is not acceptable. But section 75, I don’t understand, I’m not fully up to speed with section 75 agreements. It was proportionality and it was based against the original design, and capacity and number of residential units in the masterplan. That’s obviously grown significantly, why has the section 75 not grown along with it, based on the new plots and units? And if it’s not, why can’t we do something retrospectively like other developments across Scotland where they charge a levy per residential unit to contribute towards the infrastructure and costs around that area? Alasdair Morrison: Okay, there’s a lot in there, so, I mean, I probably won’t have time to answer all the queries about the section 75 but in a nutshell, the original outline planning permission, in terms of the number of residential units for Dargavel was 2,500. That was the original masterplan, the community growth area, the structural growth plan of yesteryear. BAE then came forward in about 2016, something like that, I might get the years slightly off here, but 2016, 2017, with a planning application to increase that by another 1,350. At the same time as doing that, and again, I can’t offer you an explanation tonight because I wasn’t involved at the time, I wasn’t even close to the project, the Council took the decision, amongst other things, amid other decisions that
Page 206
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 were taking place which we could go into but, like I said, we probably won’t have time, in terms of the money for the Community Development Trust in Bishopton, money that was going to get put towards Newton Road playing fields. But the Council decided to then remove certain elements from within the section 75 for Dargavel as a result of granting that planning permission for the increased number of houses. I can’t answer the question as to why they did that in detail because, like I say, I wasn’t involved and I don’t think of the-, well, I know none of the officers who are here tonight were indeed still-, who are currently involved with the Council. So, that decision’s been taken, it has been, to use your terminology, watered down, if that was the terminology you used, or I’ll use that terminology. Section 75 was diluted to a significant extent between the 2012 version, the original planning application, and the 2018 version that we now have. The point you were making before about, ‘Will the new primary school be designed on the basis of, almost, from scratch, or will it be designed within the existing masterplan that we have?’ We’re faced with a number of constraints, not least of which is a masterplan that’s been agreed, a section 75 that’s been agreed, and a broad layout of where housing zones and where the infrastructure will go that’s been agreed. That is effectively baked in and that’s why we’ve only got the infrastructure that we’ve got. I can’t do anything about that as we sit here today, I can negotiate. with Gerry and other colleagues. with BAE to try and make the most of what we’ve got, Louisa was involved in that meeting as well. We’ve certainly insisted that they need to do an awful lot better in terms of completing infrastructure long before the school is here, long before the second primary school, and also to make that based on a much wider, much better, much more enhanced level of path network to allow active travel to happen in the places that it can happen. We’ve still to explore and finalise the details in terms of what that’ll mean for car parking, and drop-off, and lay off, bus lay-bys and such like, we’re still in discussion with them about that. But we will be doing everything we can to make the traffic system here work as best as it can, given the circumstances that we’ve got. M3: Sorry, I shouldn’t have given my mic away, but there’s no legal recourse for the dilution or watering down as you’ve said of the section 75? Because that’s a disservice to the community, section 75s never go down, they go up. Alasdair Morrison: Yes, sorry? No, we can, sorry-, a legal recourse, we can’t make it, there’s no way back from the discussion, as I said, unless BAE agree to it. It’s a multilateral agreement, it’s not a unilateral agreement, the section 75, so basically both parties need to agree. Gillian Hoyle: It wasn’t agreed with us, it wasn’t agreed with us as homeowners, can we not use our homeowners’ rights and take you guys to court over the fact that you’ve changed the section 75, changed things we were sold on, on our properties? We were sold community hubs, we were sold the central park that was meant to be amazing, we were sold the community centre. None of this has come to fruition because you guys diluted the section 75 on us without consulting the community.
Page 207
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 That’s absolutely right. I can’t answer the question as to who was consulted because-, None of us were, we were here. Well, I take your word for that because I wasn’t involved at the time but in terms of-, well, actually you wouldn’t expect me to, I can’t give you legal advice in terms of what you would be entitled to do and what you wouldn’t be entitled to do. So, in other words, we take you to court. Has anybody counted the number of times the Council have said tonight, ‘I wasn’t here,’ because I’ve got about 50. We should have had a bingo card. Well, at the end of the day, if you’re not here, you’re not here. It wasn’t me (talking over each other) What are you meant to say? What would you say, if you weren’t here, what would you say? I think you guys should have had your due diligence to go back through the history, know the issues, know the questions, because a lot of them are repeat questions that we’ve asked time and time again, and never had an answer. So, you guys had a due diligence to trail back through all the other recorded meetings, identify what was going to come up, because we’ve asked it before, and have an answer for us. That’s a consultation, don’t feel insulted at all. Yes, and we’re doing that and we’re continuing to do it but we need the questions asked first. (talking over each other) recorded? So, Gerry, can you do a hands around the table for, ‘Put your hand up if you think this is the right site for this school?’ Can we have that? I’m more than happy to do it, it’s not a problem. So, put your hands up, if you’re a parent, put your hands up if you think-, A parent. Don’t let him not ask it. No, wait a minute, I’m not convinced that the people here want me to do that. No. So, no, I’m not going to do it. Okay, so we’ve got ten, fifteen minutes for extra questions for people to ask, thank you for that. David: Alasdair Morrison: Gillian Hoyle: Alasdair Morrison: Gillian Hoyle: M5: F4: Gerry Lyons: ?: Gerry Lyons: F4: Gerry Lyons: F4: M7: Gerry Lyons: M7: F4: M7: Gerry Lyons: Various voices: Gerry Lyons: M7: I didn’t understand that, why can we not have a parents’-,
Page 208
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 F4: A vote. Gerry Lyons: Because not everyone wants that. F4: But to be honest, they’re basing it on-, so they’re talking about surveys that they’ve had-, Gerry Lyons: Could you sit down, please, if you don’t mind? Thank you. F4: So, they’re talking about surveys they’ve had, they’ve had 253 surveys and they’re saying that there’s an overwhelming difference in opinion on those. So, again, that’s a very small section of the community. Gerry Lyons: Excuse me, do you mind sitting down? Thank you. F4: Our concern is, the people that have filled out those forms don’t necessarily have the full information at hand because if they’re not at these meetings they’re not asking probing questions to identify PR spin versus fact. That’s our concern, and that’s why tonight, we’ve had the opportunity to ask the experts, we’ve had the opportunity to decide, ‘Are we satisfied with the answer of the experts?’ I know I’m not, so that’s why it would be interesting to gauge from the room, ‘How do we feel? And does the feeling tonight represent the 253 surveys that are filled out?’ I think that would be interesting. M7: Aye, maybe we should have a vote, ‘Should we be allowed to vote?’ Would that be alright? Gerry Lyons: Listen, at the end of the day, I’m chairing the meeting and whether it suits you or not, I’m not going to have a show of hands. We have a very detailed process, we’ve got an online questionnaire and if you’ve not filled it in, can I encourage you to do so? To get your views heard, especially if you’ve not already filled it in and you’ve now heard from the experts. That will be a very, very important document. What I don’t want to do in a public meeting is take it down to that level of, ‘Who’s hands like it and who’s hands don’t?’ Because you then move into a situation where there’s an element of peer group pressure in that, whether we like it or not, there’s an element of community pressure, and it doesn’t fit in with the criteria that I set at the start of this meeting, which was about respect, civility and a good experience for everyone. So, on that basis, I’m not going to have a show of hands, I’m happy to take any additional questions because we’ve still got five minutes, and if there are no questions I’ll finish the meeting. But if there are questions about the proposal, not about what happened five years ago or three years ago, but about the actual proposal, then I’m happy to take them, because in my role as chair that’s now the phase of the meeting that we’re now in. Gillian? Gillian Hoyle: I have one question, when are you going to come back to us about Park Mains, the secondary allocation? Gerry Lyons: I have to finish this proposal and that will take me to Easter, and I can’t give you a precise date but some time between Easter and June I will come back and have discussions about Park Mains.
Page 209
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 Gillian Hoyle: The reason I’m asking is because I don’t think I can confidently say whether I think plot nine is the right allocation or not without understanding Park Mains, because I do not believe we’ve got the right allocation for the secondary school. Gerry Lyons: Okay, I disagree with you, I believe that I can show that, but it’s a discussion about Park Mains and this is a consultation about Dargavel Primary. Gillian Hoyle: It relates to the primary school for me. Gerry Lyons: Yes. F5: Is anything that’s said here tonight likely to change the proposal of preferred location or is it a done deal that it’s going to be-, Gerry Lyons: No, it’s not a done deal, we have to pull together, not just tonight, we’ve had another public meeting already, we’ve had all the information sessions, we’ve had the meetings with the statutory consultees, who have been-, well, I’ve not had the meeting with Dargavel Parent Council yet, I’ll do that on 12th March. I’m going to the Community Council tomorrow night, we’ve met with all the statutory consultees, we’ve met with the children, the teachers, the elected members. We have to pull all of that together as the outcome of the consultation, this is just one part of it, but having done that (Timecode: 00:40:00), we have a statutory responsibility, if we believe that there are clear messages about things that need to change, to take that on board and change them. That’s what we will do if we see that as coming across clearly from the responses. M7: Gerry, what’s the timescale on that then, in terms of decision making? Gerry Lyons: So, the statutory consultation finishes on 26th March, Education Scotland then have three weeks to do their work. So, they do, you know, they look at all of this, they’ve been here, they looked at all the documentation, they’re coming to both schools on the week beginning 26th. They then write a report, they’ve got three weeks to do that. We then have three weeks to respond to their report and then that’s all pulled together and it will be taken to a meeting of the elected members on the board on 23rd May. That will be the decision where it either goes forward or it stops and then the work, and that timeline that you’ve got there, will move forward from there. Yes. F1: If the proposed site goes ahead and you’re ready for August ’27, does that mean that the kids here get their playground back? Like, do the buildings outside get taken down? Gerry Lyons: The temporary classrooms have got a five year warranty on them and one of the things that we have looked at is how quickly we would remove them if we get to that position, and we can move them in a-, Frank? A matter of weeks. A matter of weeks, so yes. Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: F1: But the capacity, that’s the plan?
Page 210
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 Gerry Lyons: Yes. I just wasn’t sure. What developer contributions are going to be extracted from the remaining phases of residential developments? Zero. Yes, we’re not doing that. F1: M3: Various voices: F1: Alasdair Morrison: I mean, I don’t know if it was with this group, forgive me, or if it was with the group next door earlier, but the section 75 agreement already sets out the developer contributions for the quantum of housing development for Dargavel. That’s what’s usually agreed at what’s called a planning in principle stage, which was that 2018 decision I referred to. Usually then when you come forward with your detailed layout and design of the houses, there’s no further discussion around that. That’s the normal way the planning process works, anything that comes additional in terms of developer contributions would be at the behest of BAE. There are examples around Scotland of other developments that don’t have section 75s and they apply a levy to the units of residential development built. Why are we not exploring that as a legal standpoint? I don’t know where these examples are but if you’re talking about the roof tax, as it became known in the media, it’s not legally possible to do that in Scotland. There’s case law in Aberdeenshire where they were significantly reprimanded as a Council for trying to do that with a big development to the south on one of the estates. The Highland Council are doing it. They don’t do a roof tax, they do-, They don’t do a roof tax, no, they do (talking over each other) No, it’s called a developer contribution standard, which is applied in terms of for new developments, and Renfrewshire Council is currently in the process of working towards having such approved guidance. Because there are a number of plots still to be developed and units to be built. There are. And we’ve already heard tonight, which will be minuted, and everyone already knows it anyway, that the section 75 was, as you said, diluted or watered down. Surely, we should be doing everything we can, or you as a Council should be doing everything you can, to regain as much money from the huge profits that these developers are making. They are laughing because they’re running away with it, plus we took money off the table willy nilly for some reason, who knows. They’ve all gone, whoever did that, they’re probably retired and having a great time. M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: M3: Alasdair Morrison: Yes, well I-,
Page 211
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 M3: We’re the ones left with that legacy, we’re the ones that are being robbed of a community that should be a lot stronger and better. Yes, tonight we’re talking about schools, what are these kids going to do at weekends and on evenings? When they get older and teenagers? There’s a huge capacity right now but when they’re older it’s going to be wild, and we’re left with that. Gerry Lyons: Yes, one of the really interesting things that’s come up through all the conversation we’ve had is that one. ‘What about the teenagers and the young people as they go through?’ And I think that is a really important thing to look at and to have conversations about, and to explore, so that’s certainly one aspect I think will come out of this consultation, that we will have a further look at, ‘Well, what can we offer our young people so that they’re not bored, and then because they’re bored, they then start to do things that they wouldn’t normally do?’ So, it’s a really helpful input actually. M3: But it’s going to cost money, everything does. Gerry Lyons: Well, at the moment we don’t-, M3: So, the developer question of a contribution (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Yes, at the moment we don’t know what it is. M3: But there must be other routes to get the money (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: But the conversation is a good one to have, I think, and I appreciate you raising it. Okay, everyone, I’m aware-, Kevin: Gerry, can I ask one, sorry? Gerry Lyons: Aye, of course. Kevin: Just following on from that, in terms of any, kind of, building that we do with the school, anything else within Bishopton here, there’s got to be a community benefit aspect included into that in terms of the scoring matrix for any contactor etc. that’s approved. What is that going to look like for Bishopton? Is that money going to stay within Bishopton? Can we stipulate things such as contribution towards Holm Park, for instance, and the facilities there? Very simply, what the gentleman’s just said, can we get that, kind of, put in place, where it’s (talking over each other) children’s-, Gerry Lyons: I need to take that back to the procurement team, Kevin, but I will because I don’t know the answer. M7: Why are procurement not here? Gerry Lyons: We, kind of, went with the biggest issues that had come up in the early stages and procurement hasn’t really been one of them but that’s a question we don’t know the answer to. Procurement will be able to give you a steer and we’ll certainly going to come back to you with that. F1: The next time can we have people who are going to come and lead the bull by the horns, instead of people that say, ‘I believe,’ ‘I don’t expect you to have trust in me,’ ‘Don’t take my word,’? It’s not acceptable to have a leader that’s representing the community-,
Page 212
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 Gerry Lyons: Listen, what I’m saying to you is-, M7: Don’t interrupt what the lady’s saying. Gerry Lyons: Sorry, pardon. F1: No, you’ve stood there through the whole first section using, ‘I believe,’ and saying, ‘You don’t need to trust what I’m saying,’ ‘Don’t take my words as a promise of delivery.’ No leader stands there and sets that tone, a leader leads by example. Gerry Lyons: I’m going to come back at you on that because I couldn’t disagree with you more. What a leader doesn’t do is say, ‘Believe me, believe me, believe me,’ when you believed people previous to me and they let you down. What I am asking you to do, is to watch the processes, watch the systems, watch the engagement, watch the progress through all of those things and then make a decision. Don’t take my word for it because you did that before. So, it’s not a failure of leadership in my opinion, what I’m saying to you is an honest steer, which is, ‘There’s loads to be done here, there are lots of processes to go through, were I you and I’d gone through what you’d gone through, then I would be reluctant to take someone’s word on it.’ F1: Take our (talking over each other) out of it-, Gerry Lyons: Just let me finish, and on that basis, I wouldn’t ask you to take my word for it but what I will ask you to do is to watch the actions, and hopefully at the end of that you’ll come back to me and say, ‘Gerry, you did deliver,’ and then that will be a good thing for the children. F1: (talking over each other) we want evidence, we want facts and we want information, take the emotion out of it, as a professional, on a professional level. This is not professional, it’s not been delivered professionally and we’re not-, Gerry Lyons: Okay, all I can do is to say, I note your point, thank you for making it, I completely disagree with it. F1: (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: And that’s now nine o’clock so I have to bring it to a conclusion. Louisa Mahon: Thank you very much, everyone. F4: At what point do we find out-, so, of all the questions that have been posted out or the information grabs, what timeline are we looking at for getting that back to us? Gerry Lyons: So, once we pull all of this together, the timeline is that period between the consultation period finishing and all the reports being written. F4: (talking over each other) the transcription for tonight? Louisa Mahon: There were some key questions that we’ll get back to you asap on. If you give us, like, a week to come back to you, would that be okay? We’ve all got all your email addresses from everyone that’s here, so we can either try and get it out to you directly or we can put it out through the Parent Councils
Page 213
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 Session 2 and the Community Council, would that be okay? So, key questions we’ve picked up tonight, we’ll get that (talking over each other) F4: When will the transcription for tonight’s meeting be available? Louisa Mahon: We normally have that around (talking over each other) David: The clock is ticking, the clock is ticking, we need to see action from the Council in getting this a bit better than it is. I can’t say they’re ever going to get it right, and BAE have-, they’re a corporate body, they’ve done everything that Renfrewshire Council asked them to do, and it’s the mistakes that have been made by Renfrewshire Council that have caused all of this. Gerry Lyons: Yes, and as I said at the start, we’ve got to now try to move forward to change that situation. Listen folks, I’m very aware of the time, our let only is until nine o’clock, thank you for coming along and thank you for your participation this evening. Recording ends.
Page 214
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Alasdair Morrison: Gerry Hannah: Alasdair Morrison: Louisa Mahon: Various voices: Louisa Mahon: Alasdair Morrison: Dougie: Louisa Mahon: -land estates, upcoming development and other things. I’ll let Gerry introduce himself. Thanks, Alasdair , for those I’ve not met yet over the course of the evenings we’ve had here, my name’s Gerry Hannah, I’m the Council’s Head of Climate, Public Protection and Roads. So, I’m here to talk about any, kind of, road related infrastructure development, both around the existing school site but obviously the proposed school site. Obviously, if there are questions around the wider development as well, then okay, we can try and address them at the same time. So, this first group tonight, for the first, I think we’ve got about 30 minutes, do we, round about, maybe just a bit under, was to focus on site location and transport issues. So, if we can keep any questions to that, we’ll obviously get these recorded as we go along and we’ll try, as far possible, to take it in turns in terms of, if somebody wants to speak, if they can indicate and put their hand up, and then we’ll try and deal with that question as we can. If anybody’s got something related to it, we’ll try and cover that same issue, so long as we keep tabs on time overall. We’ll try and obviously share that out amongst everybody around it so everybody gets a chance to have a say as far as we possibly can. Just to say, is everyone okay with us recording this? Yes, of course. We’ll do the transcript etc. for it, and if there’s anything that comes up that’s not, I guess, on topic in terms of site and also travel and transport, I’ll make a note of it. So, if there’s stuff we want to come back and meet with you about, or specific questions, I’ll keep a note of that and make sure that we do get back to you with what those issues are. And as Gerry covered, anything specific about the design of the school, you’ll cover it when you go through and join the second group. So, I’m quite happy to go with whoever wants to kick off. I’ll go first. In terms of site location, does that influence catchment areas? I’ve got a question around children at the existing school, so if you’ve got children at the existing school just now, the new school’s built, the catchment area’s drawn, and your children fall into the new catchment area, is there any impact in terms of the children at the current school? No, sorry, I know that’s-, from working with the team-, sorry, my name’s Louisa, I’m the Head of Marketing and Communications, I should have introduced myself, apologies everyone. If your child is currently at Dargavel Primary or even if your child is currently at Bishopton Primary School, irrespective of what happens with the catchment area, if you wish to remain, that’s absolutely fine. If you had siblings, you would then-, the sibling policy, you’ve got the prioritisation within the sibling policy, so you’re not under any, sort of, pressure to make a change.
Page 215
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined So, following on from that then, if you’ve got a sibling-, is the sibling policy going to apply to the new school as well, whereby if you’ve got one sibling at this school, for example, this one-, Yes. They would get the first priority-, For the new school in 2027? Yes. Sorry, if you were? So, if there was a child at the school here-, Yes, but were in the other catchment? Yes. You could choose to move. Both? Yes. Yes, so effectively it’s new households bringing children to school that would be affected by the catchment. If your children are already at the school, their siblings would get the chance to go to the same school. But how would that affect-, That’s probably better for Gerry and Janie because they can answer them a lot better for you but yes, as Louisa said, we-, It’s okay, we know how the catchment policy works and the sibling policy works. Are your children currently here? Dougie’s is, mine is not, mine is two and a half. Looking at the plans tonight, we are splitting the border between both catchment areas, I mean, right on the line, so would it be one or the other? I think following on from Dougie’s question then would be, if we proposed going to the new school over this one because there have been a lot of concerns and voices raised about the design of this school, the open plan etc. If this one was better for our child’s needs, would the sibling policy then mean that if Dougie moved his child to the other school, the new school, would that then mean that there’s one less space for our child to go to that school, so therefore they would go into a ballot as well? Because my daughter wouldn’t have a sibling, therefore would that space be missing because Dougie’s then taken that space up? No offence to you, mate. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. Yes, if that got to-, M9: Louisa Mahon: M9: Dougie: M9: Louisa Mahon: M9: Louisa Mahon: M9: Louisa Mahon: M9: Louisa Mahon: Alasdair Morrison: M9: Kevin: Louisa Mahon: M9: Louisa Mahon: Gerry Hannah: Alasdair Morrison: There’s Janie, who might be able to answer in terms of-, might be the best bet.
Page 216
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined M9: If we’re off topic, apologies, but-, Louisa Mahon: No, not at all, it’s a catchment question, a specific one. So, I’ll let you explain. M9: Right okay, so if you’ve got one-, F4: I know, that’s a very specific question, I think we should be talking more generalised but if we go in, can I ask a general question? So, if we’ve got somebody who wants to have two children at the school, at this school but they wanted (talking over each other) would be gone, so my child, who’s then going to school-, she’s two and a half just now, so she’ll probably be going (talking over each other) Yes, so I appreciate that, but one question, please. Because I’m looking at the scores and they’re all very close, what made that (talking over each other) the decision (talking over each other) Try and do that, it’s just because the recording won’t pick us up if-, Various voices talking over each other So, this lady over here was asking a question, do you want to ask it again just for the purposes of the tape? Yes, so I was just asking you to, sort of, talk us through, there are a lot of scores that are very close here, what was it that made the site that you’ve decided on for the proposal-, why did you go with that one? Okay, so the 23 sites that were under consideration are all set out there in the matrix and hopefully the scoring is relatively self-explanatory in terms of why scores were attributed to the individual sites. Then all that’s happened is they’ve just been put forward and populated the matrix on that basis. So, the criteria are along the lines of ownership of the site, its current development land status, how close it is to the households that will form that catchment, any additional costs that would be involved, in terms of, if you had to build new roads to it for instance, that’s obviously a significant factor. So, it’s been extrapolated through, and as you pointed out, a number of the sites score quite closely, they do. There was no public consultation on that scoring, is that correct? This is the public consultation on the-, The decisions have been made, I can’t change the score, is what I’m asking. You can comment on the consultation that’s in front of us tonight, sir, so you can comment on everything that’s contained within the consultation documents. M9: Gerry Hannah: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: F4: We weren’t asked our opinions prior to this, which is frustrating me because it’s already been commented that if we propose a different solution, that almost puts everything back to square one. Which in my opinion means that’s presented as if that puts 2027 at risk, so if we did propose a different solution, does that put the 2027 deadline at risk? How long does it take you
Page 217
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Alasdair Morrison: Liz: F4: Kevin: Liz: F4: Liz: ?: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: David: F4: David: to get to this point, and if we proposed a different solution, how quickly could we get to the next consultation for that new solution? Okay-, Sorry to butt in but Gerry Lyons has already confirmed to me that it absolutely would change the timeline and it wouldn’t come in, in 2027. So, why were we not consulted? It’s very, very difficult to get 2027 (talking over each other) If you throw that out, you have to accept that comes with bussing all the children out to different schools. So, it’s almost like we’re being held to ransom. It’s really not a proposal, like, it’s not really an option. This date is not going to happen-, If we just go with one at a time. The date is very, very optimistic in my opinion as it is. I’ve already raised most of these, kind of, concerns with you, Alasdair , in terms of, I think we should have gone to, almost, a pre-consultation to try to get the right site, and not further delay unnecessarily. Which I think is what you’re pretty much saying there, is if we had more input as a community, it might not have been the site that we chose, and we may have a better chance of being closer to 2027 than what we are just-, Just because this is going to be on public record, I just want to make the point that I think this is the wrong location for the following reasons. It’s far too close to the existing primary, about 400 metres, it’s on the same road as the existing primary and there is already traffic chaos at the existing primary. That location has been chosen because it’s a negotiation that happened with BAE and it is fait accompli that is going to be the location. We are not being consulted, it is going to be that location. Totally agree. It’s not the right location, because this has been relevant to this discussion, because of the traffic management situation. We’re going to have a whole bunch of people coming in one direction from the north of Dargavel to drop their kids at the proposed new school and then heading towards the motorway. Then pupils coming to this school in the opposite direction trying to do a U-turn. Now, the solution to that in the Council’s eyes is to create an active travel policy, which is great and one that I support, but parents and grandparents just don’t follow it. When it rains people get in their car and they drive to school, and they drop off and pick up their kids. It doesn’t work because of Renfrewshire Council’s policy of primary one and two children needing to eyeball a parent or guardian to let their child be released. So, you need to park next to the school to pick up your child, so you get a whole bunch of parking issues, like you do here and historically you have at Bishopton Primary.
Page 218
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined I know we spoke about this before, your solution was, ‘Well, we can double yellow line it, maybe, if it doesn’t work, we can double yellow line it (Timecode: 00:10:00).’ It just pushes the cars further out but your honest appraisal to me was, last week, ‘If it’s bad, we’ll see if we can come up with a solution.’ So, that’s not good enough because this community has been let down by Renfrewshire Council in so many ways and there’s a long list. I get the pressures to provide schooling for 2027 but you can’t make the wrong decision-, F4: Again. David: For the long term just to fix a short term problem. Building a school for 1,100 to 1,400 pupils within 400 metres of each other is not a good solution, so it needs to think again. Forgive me, can I ask, what is the question you’re asking us here tonight though? I know you’ve got comments and I think these comments are all valid and (talking over each other) the consultation but-, I’m putting on record and I hope it’s being recorded, that this is the wrong-, I’m not asking a question, this is a consultation where I’m putting my public opinion on record, and I encourage more people to do that. Yes. Sure. It’s not the right location and the traffic management plan hasn’t been thought through, and it needs to be thought through before it moves forward with an actual solution. Okay, so, thank you, if you don’t-, (talking over each other) preferred. I’m just looking at these sites up in the north part of the village and I don’t understand why we’ve got, ‘We’re having two schools and we’re splitting catchment areas when we’ve got a very sizeable housing development. Why are we not having a school on the opposite end? Because this school is in the south, so why are we not having-, Money. Can I ask Alistair that question then? Very similar, so when we met before Christmas, Alistair, you had mentioned that part of the initial considerations that you were tasked to go away with was, making a central location where everybody can do active travel within the middle of the development, that was the primary consideration at that point. Having a site more remote was not optimal, is pretty much what came out of that. It was to be in the centre of the village which made it more easily accessible. Alasdair Morrison: David: F4: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: F4: Liz: ?: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: The more central it is to the catchment, Kevin, almost certainly the more propensity there will be for people to walk or use active travel to get to that location, almost certainly.
Page 219
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: But you can see from the current location that active travel is not the solution and I don’t think we should be relying on that or heavily focused on that as a reason for the location. Because in practical terms, it’s not real life and if you just speak to the families that have to get to work, you’ve got younger children, you’ve got parents helping with pick-up and drop-off, that’s not really life. So, I don’t think we should be anchoring too much on that because-, Various voices talking over each other. Sorry, just, there’s a-, in terms of the (talking over each other) Alasdair Morrison: Gerry Hannah: I’ll bring in the lady in the green in a wee minute, if that’s alright, there are just a couple of points being raised just now that are probably worthwhile clarifying. Nobody has said active travel is the only solution here, so just to get that correct here. Nobody has said that that’s going to be the magic bullet that solves any problems in relation to traffic management. We all have lived lives where you drop kids at school on your way to work, so nobody’s sitting here thinking it’s all going to be done through active travel, that would be silly of us to think so. What we want to try and do is promote active travel as much as we possibly can, you can see how well it operates in the school here. This school has the highest uptake of kids that walk, wheel and cycle to school in any school across Renfrewshire, so we’re building on something that’s already very successful here and the kids have embraced that greatly. So, fair play to them and the parents. Kevin: Which is great (talking over each other) issues outside. Gerry Hannah: Absolutely. F5: Double the size of the issues. Gerry Hannah: What we want to do is, we want to build on that, so just to address that point. There are a range of options, not just looking purely active travel, what we’ve done to this point is we’ve commissioned a transport consultant to work with us, in terms of identifying potential opportunities. Transport assessments, full detailed transport assessments only come into play when there’s a planning application process ready to proceed, right, we’re not at that stage yet, obviously this is part of the consultation process. But to do some early work, that’s why we’ve got the transport consultant on board, to give us some ideas in terms of what potential options there may be, not just exclusively active travel, just to-, F4: That makes me really nervous, that it’s not a point to talk about that. Gerry Hannah: I’m really sorry, sorry, excuse me, but the lady in the green-, F4: Can I just make one more comment? Gerry Hannah: No. F4: Because it’s been such a fight to even get something simple like a lollipop lady to support us. Liz: (talking over each other) transport consultant.
Page 220
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: So, it makes me so nervous that-, Gerry Hannah: I appreciate the points you’re making. Liz: We got told repeatedly that the road wasn’t busy enough for a lollipop person, so that’s the travel consultants, we don’t have faith in that. Gerry Hannah: Aye, I listen, I’m sorry but-, aye, I’m sorry, I appreciate the points you’re making but this lady has been waiting patiently here. F7: When we were here the last time, we know the site was chosen because the Council owned the land, which was good. Then we raised the thought of the issue with the SuDS and we said, ‘What if BAE owned the SuDS and the Council owned the primary school, what happens with the, kind of, not no- man’s land but if child were to chuck a bag or, what safety concerns were going to be put in place?’ We’re wondering since we chatted last time, have you guys been able to have a conversation about that or have you had a solution to it? Gerry Hannah: Yes, we’ve actually met with BAE last week on a number of different issues and it is regular engagement we have with them. One of the issues we did bring up was the feedback from parents and others around the concerns around that specific point you make. That’s something that we’ll be working with them together on, and looking at enhancing safety measures around, the water courses, to make sure that the kids are safe when they’re in the vicinity. I don’t want overly dramatize things here but just so people are aware, any, kind of, other water courses we have, we look at potential life- saving equipment, all of that, water safety equipment but also supported by education in the schools and things like that as well, just make kids aware of what dangers exist and how they behave in a way around it. No, I’m pretty sure that’s a bit unrealistic. That doesn’t always work, so that’s a continual ongoing process but we have made contact with BAE and met with them about that. Okay. F7: Gerry Hannah: F7: Alasdair Morrison: Can I just add to that point, just while Gerry’s made it? So, you’ll all be aware of the area that’s known as Central Park, it sits in between so it might be seen a no-man’s land but there is a significant investment to go in there in the next twelve to eighteen months. So, there will be an awful lot more connectivity in terms of footpaths, it will be an awful lot easier to go from the east side, so the, sort of, far side, if you like, of the village centre, and come to this side of the school by coming through the central area of Dargavel. F7: Just on that point, so in the twelve to eighteen months is there somewhere I could find that document to read it? Like, so that the plans that you’re talking about-, Alasdair Morrison: Oh yes, yes, they’re all published, they’re all on the Council’s website, so we could direct you towards that.
Page 221
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F7: Louisa Mahon: F7: Kevin: David: The Council’s website, I’ll find it there. (talking over each other) you’re talking about is particularly the focus of the discussion with BAE and it’s ongoing with further recommendations to come back, so that-, Okay, ongoing. Yes, Central Park was meant to be completed by this point in the development but BAE continue to push that back because they say it’s not financially viable unless they get more houses, and get more development, and more parcels sold. Going back to your point you mentioned about the Council owned that part of the land which the school’s proposed on, the Council negotiated on that part of land, but they had options to negotiate for any other parcel of land-, And they don’t own that. And they don’t own the land per se, if a school is not built on that parcel of land it transfers back to BAE. So, the land is only available to the Council to build a school on, it doesn’t-, the Council wouldn’t be able then to build houses etc, it would be a school-, We had this conversation at the information evening, I think it was last week. The Council owns the site. The Council owns the option but it’s only to build the school, you don’t-, No, the Council doesn’t have an option, the Council owns the site, it doesn’t have an option on the site, let’s be-, So, if the Council-, Let’s all go then, if the Council own the site, let’s just go because the decision’s made, there’s no consultation, make your mind up. So, is this a consultation or is it fait accompli? It is a consultation but the Council own that site. The Council own the site but if a school is not built on that site, what happens to that site, Alasdair ? Well, if that was to happen then the site would revert to BAE. The site reverts to BAE. So, if a school is not built on that site, it reverts to BAE. So, you don’t want (talking over each other) So, technically the Council only own that site if we continue to build a school there. Which is the current proposal. Which is the current proposal. Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: David: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: F4: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Yes.
Page 222
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Kevin: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: David: Liz: David: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Okay, now, in terms of the scoring, Liz asked a very, very fair question earlier on, that every other-, there are a lot of other sites that are very, very close-, I’m looking at number 22, for instance, and I just think that that would be a much better solution to-, Which one is 22? (talking over each other) Yes, that one up there. The north part-, It’s off Slateford Road, it creates equidistance between the three primary schools. So, that to me, would be an ideal site. I second that, for the record, much better. So, firstly, did you buy this site before you decided and before this public consultation started? In which case, again, what’s the point of the consultation? Secondly, why did you discount 22? Okay, can I take-, sorry, can I-, (talking over each other) site scoring, sorry Alasdair , but it feeds into that as well. So, you’ve scored site E1 as one point higher than ten of the other ones, but if we’d done the site scoring matrix before entering negotiations for site E1, then they would all have been equal, so why have we chosen E1 above the likes of 22, for instance? There’s a lot in there in terms of coming back to scoring. So, your first point in terms of the purchase of the site, so the feeling within Renfrewshire Council was that in order to be able to offer the certainty of being able to deliver a school by the timescale that is necessary as you heard from Gerry, in terms of summer ’27, we felt we needed to own the site. So that when we came and did a proposed consultation, as we’re doing in this current exercise, we’d be able to say (Timecode: 00:20:00) with certainty that we can deliver a school if the proposed consultation backs that site. So, that’s why we went in to bat with BAE to negotiate to purchase the site, which we’ve done. There were a lot of things that came in on the back of that, there have been comments thrown around in terms of the relative cost of that, I can explain all that if we’ve got time tonight, or send it to you at a later date. But there was an awful lot of negotiation that went in from BAE in terms of what they got back in return to allow the Council to own that site, and it certainly wasn’t for nothing but I can quantify all that for you in terms of exactly how much BAE got back in return. Did they want more for 22? I mean, this question comes up but BAE don’t currently own site 22 or at least not all of it. They have an option on a tiny part of it, related to the demands-, I know Kevin feels differently but if you let me come back, Kevin, in terms of-, so, 22, the major difficulty with 22, aside from the fact that a lot of people that are in the catchment-, so if you imagine the catchment was drawn, again, like that, you might say it might be drawn differently but let’s
Page 223
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined assume for the purposes of the consultation it’s drawn roughly what I call south west to north east, through the middle of Dargavel. Then the people at the bottom end are obviously going to have an awful lot more distance to walk, if you’re wanting to promote active travel. But the main reason against 22 is its deliverability, it’s in the green belt and therefore-, for a site that’s in the green belt there’s a fairly elongated, protracted process that needs to be gone through in order to get planning consent, and the final decision does not lie with Renfrewshire Council, it lies with Scottish Ministers. So, we felt that was introducing a huge amount of uncertainty that would elongate the timescale and give us an idea of not really knowing when we’d be able to deliver a school. So, these are the main reasons why we didn’t go with 22. David: You are right on that, to be fair, I absolutely agree it would elongate the timescales because it is green belt area, but this is a generational decision, the school’s going to be here for 60 years. It’s not actually about 2027, there’s a pressing need because of the incompetence of your organisation to get us to this point but you have to look at the long term, and having two schools so close to each other with all the traffic chaos that that’s going to cause, is not the best thing to create a good place to work, to live. You wouldn’t have the same catchment area, you would change the catchment area, the catchment area here’s been drawn, like, with a line, like Stalin when he drew the railway through Russia. It’s a line through the village which is the best you’ve got to do with this proposal but you would change the catchment, so that the north end of the village went to 22 and the south side of the village, which a lot of it is still to be built on, would come to this school, which is actually significantly smaller. Gerry Hannah: So, see if I can just-, Louisa Mahon: (talking over each other) Gerry Hannah: Sorry Louisa, can I just come in? We’ve only got ten minutes or so left in here and I suppose-, F4: Site 21, what was the problem with site 21? Louise Mahon: No, there was something quite important just to add in to the conversation, in the early days when we had the public meetings, two things were raised as being really important, and that was getting a school as quickly as possible, so that children weren’t displaced further than need be. And also, to have a school that was still broadly in the heart of the community, so they’re some of the principles that have been followed when we’ve been looking at this as well. David: That principle’s great but we’ve not got a blank canvas, we’re in a mess. Like, so if you’re building this amazing place then you want a big school in the heart. Let’s not forget BAE should have been building this whole thing, this should have been one big school in one location, fit for purpose, but it’s not and we are where we are. So, I think we can discount the, ‘Let’s do it all nice and fluffy,’ because we’re in a mess.
Page 224
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F8: I would like to say I disagree, I don’t actually think Dargavel should have one great big primary school. Kevin: I don’t either. F8: I think that would be a big mistake, so I do think two schools is actually right, and I think site 22 is quite hilly and quite wet, there’s a stream and things that run through it. I’m not sure site 22 would be the ideal building place. David: There’s a stream right outside this school, you know, it’s not-, F8: But you’re right, it should have been decided-, the planning department has let Dargavel down badly. David: But you’re right about the size, I didn’t want a gigantic school but they messed up on the numbers. F8: Yes. David: If they’d got the numbers right, they would have built a gigantic school and BAE would have paid for it, so that’s what would have happened, and we as taxpayers wouldn’t be forking out £45 million. We’re in a mess, that’s the point I’m making. Kevin: There are a couple of bits there as well, so in the original plans back in 2001, 2002, there were meant to be three primary schools and a secondary school. That’s all been cut down at various points through section 75s, despite additional housing. So, my conversation with Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary, last summer, her ideal number for a primary school is nowhere close to 800, she believes that to be closer to 450. An 800 primary school is huge, it’s far too big. So, if we’re looking at an 800 primary school, should we really be looking at one primary school or two primary schools? It’s across the board but we’re in this mess, and yes, I take Louisa’s point, one of the big things was, ‘We need a school and we need it quickly,’ and that’s correct. But whatever decisions are taken affect not just you and I, it affects everybody for 50, 60 years now. That is a huge consideration, so as David quite rightly said earlier on, yes, it might be that we need a little tiny bit more short term pain to make sure we get this decision right, because we live with it, our kids live with it, our grandkids live with it. We’re going to have to have this for years, and years, and years, and still be paying for it, so we need to get it right. F8: I think the reality is though, that the planning department along with BAE-, let BAE away with a whole lot of errors, and the realistic position is you are not going to get the best solution anymore, you are just going to get the best you can do in the situation, which is different to getting the best thing. Kevin: Absolutely, 100% and I completely get that. F8: And we’re where we are now. David: But this is a 45 million decision of our taxpayers’ money, our money, so it does, kind of, matter that we get it right. Kevin: Absolutely, so is E1 then-,
Page 225
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Hannah: Alasdair Morrison: F4: Gerry Hannah: F4: Gerry Hannah: F4: Gerry Hannah: F4: ?: Gerry Hannah: Sorry, if I can cut across, Kevin, sorry, we’ve only got a finite time. Again, sorry, just to bring it back, the principle this evening was for us to answer questions that will allow you as a community to answer and respond to the consultation. So, I don’t want anybody to leave here thinking they’ve not been able to ask a question they wanted to ask in relation to the subjects that myself and Alasdair are here to cover with you. Without being able to ask a question. So, how could you reassure us then? So, those two plots being so close together, you as experts reassure me, why is that okay for those two plots to be so close together? Do you want me to answer from a, kind of, roads perspective? Everything perspective. So, to cover it from a, kind of, roads perspective, going back to the work that we’ve done to date so far. So, when it became clear there was going to be a consultation identifying a proposed site-, as I understand, I’m not an education person, but I understand the Education Act says you have to go forward with a specific site as part of a consultation. So, that became clear, obviously there was going to be a proposed site. Once that proposed site that was going to be part of the consultation became clear, we engaged a transport consultant to look at both the proposed site, but also how that would then interact with the existing school site and the wider development, including future development that’s still yet to come online, with the development here. They’ve identified a number of opportunities for us to work through over the coming weeks, months and years in terms of making the school as accessible as possible. That looks at just simple things like the location we’ve got here just now, we know-, I’m looking for something specific though, I get the political fluff and we don’t have a lot of time-, Sorry, I’m not a politician, that’s not my role. It sounds fluffy, I genuinely want the facts. So, you head up roads for Renfrewshire Council, so you’re involved in planning everything, emergencies, road closures, you name it. Reassure me why it’s okay for that number of pupils, therefore that number of parents, to be on those-, so close together at that time. On the one road. Where I was coming to was, you’ve got the location here, existing. So, we’ve identified, working with Kevin and the school in terms of parent behaviours, largely, in terms of parking behaviours before school time, whether that’s-, I think we agree, particularly at pick-up time in the afternoon we have a peak problem, in the morning it’s spread out because of breakfast clubs etc, it’s a much wider peak but in the afternoon it’s a much more narrow peak. So, looking at potential behaviour changes, and there are two ways you do behaviour changes. You either do it through education and supporting the
Page 226
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined school through it or you look at what restrictions you put in place. The other thing is then looking at-, F4: I’m interested in the number, so not restrictions, the number. Gerry Hannah: So, if you let me finish, the other thing we then look at is, what is there in the way of pick-up and drop-off facilities for the school, and is that sufficient for the numbers that are coming here just now? I think there would be a consensus that that is an area that we have to look at and it’s something that we’re looking at just now in terms of the available land use that we have here, and how we can address pick-up and drop-off. F4: That’s not an answer. Dougie: On that point, no, I think Arrochar Drive’s not a great route at the moment, you’ve got cars parked up one side, all the cars trying come down, trying to go up. I think what the point is as well, if you’ve got another school on that same road, and that’s the accessible road to get to the motorway, what’s the alternative, for example, for the parents that do need to drive, do need to drop-, parents and grandparents, guardians, that do have to drive outside of the village? So, if that is the one road, what is the plan in terms of how you get from the new school to the motorway, for example (Timecode: 00:30:00)? F4: And what number of cars do you predict will be using that road? David: But then this is the fact that the plan is going, ‘It’s a mess, we’ll see if we can come up with a solution.’ That’s the plan, there is no plan because they’re going to have massive clashes. F4: And we’ve been part of lots of meetings, we’re not getting answers. Gerry Hannah: If I can answer this gentleman’s question, if that’s alright? F4: But can you answer my question first? With all due respect I don’t feel I got an answer. Gerry Hannah: So, yes, we’ve got the link road from here to here that isn’t built yet, and that’s the road that BAE have started the process of building just now. So, if you can imagine, I’ll draw this more crudely, but the catchment area along here somewhere. So, what you’ve got to look at then, in terms of the future development of the school, is how the traffic’s obviously going to interact there. Is it all going to be interactions coming down this way, up this way? Which, obviously, that’s one of the points that was quite rightly raised. A number of options to look at in terms of how that interacts, you have the potential for parking exclusion zones which have operated very successfully around a number of schools in Glasgow, we’ve trialled it here in Renfrewshire around a number of schools as well. That is largely self-policing but also is enforced as well, by the police. That would say that cars outwith people who live in that particular zone do not enter that zone between the hours of say, 8:30am and 9:15, 2:30pm and 3:15. That is just one option, another option potentially could be, do you look at some form of one way system to keep the traffic interactions from coming
Page 227
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined against one another? What we asked the transport consultant to come up with was a number of options, not just one solution that’s going to be, as I said, the magic bullet that’s going to solve all the problems. F4: So, at this point in the consultation we don’t-, and that’s really frustrating to me, that you don’t have that answer to present to us right now, and to me that’s quite huge. You’re talking about exclusion, so putting up signs, ‘Don’t Park Here,’ that’s not what I’m asking you, I’m asking for the 1,100 families that have to drop-off at school then get to work. Have you guys proposed or looked at what percentage of those are typically, like my family, three minutes away, kids can walk to school without crossing a road, great? Have you looked at the families that are not in my position and that need a car? How many are you expecting to be using a car to go through that area and how do you fit them in? I’m not asking for how do you exclude them because that’s not the answer, that’s not what we want as a community. I don’t want to be excluded from being able to drop my child off at school and get to work on time. I’m asking you, if I have to take my car, where do I drop my kid off and what traffic am I going to deal with? Can I try and answer your question that you are making-, I’d love it, I’d love an answer. In a slightly different way. What you’ve got with Dargavel is approximately 4,300 houses planned. You’ve only got the road network that has been proposed by BAE and accepted by the Council. You haven’t got any other road network and you’ve got the housing sites where they are, regardless of where you put the schools. So, the other alternatives that people have suggested in terms of, you know, you could put a school up in this area, you’ve still only got that road network. So, the challenge that you’re suggesting there is going to be faced in Dargavel regardless of where you put the school. I did say, if your schools are not that close together-, Various voices talking over each other. Hold on, sorry-, The (talking over each other) would be, everybody from this area would be going to this school, sorry, if you moved it from here. Everybody from here would be going up, drop their kids at school and join the motorway. Everybody from here would go to this school and go and join the motorway. And you’re telling me, sorry, in terms of that that would make-, in terms of using exactly the same roads that there would be no-, Various voices talking over each other. You’re farming them off in different directions. Alasdair Morrison: F4: Alasdair Morrison: F4: Alasdair Morrison: Dougie: Alasdair Morrison: F4: Alasdair Morrison: There would be no congestion going towards Slateford Road and no congestion coming towards here just because you put them at the other ends?
Page 228
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Kevin: If you’ve got the site there, the left hand side of Slateford Road, 22, you’ve then got the traffic going up Slateford Road, which makes it more advantageous for them to either go along through Bishopton onto the motorway or go down towards Langbank. Alasdair Morrison: Sorry, with respect, Kevin, that assumes that that traffic wants to go to the motorway. Kevin: But that’s what I’m saying, that’s where 99% of people are going, on the motorway to go to Glasgow. Gerry Hannah: Sorry, this gentleman’s not asked a question yet. M8: A school in the middle of a large housing estate, 4,000 houses, and you’re putting a school right in the middle, and you’ve only got these few roads, two roads in to the estate. It’s just going to cause, you know-, Liz: You’re drawing everybody in, instead of spreading them out. It makes no sense at all. You’re just creating a bottleneck right in the middle instead of spreading it out. I don’t (talking over each other) F4: (talking over each other) this is bonkers. Liz: Any possibility you don’t understand that there’s a difference between half of the village going north and half of the village going south. Two lines of traffic going this way, it’s completely different to everybody meeting in the middle and once you go up to the north you have so many more options, yes to go to the motorway. If you want to go back all the way round then fine but most people would choose to go a different way. F4: And restrictions are not the answer because my daughter used to go to Newmains Primary. So, fine, you can’t park here, you can’t park there, so what do parents have to do? Oh, we park there instead and the traffic’s all still in the same areas. The schools are too close together, that to me is quite frightening that that’s the solution you guys are proposing. Kevin: You mentioned as well the enforceable aspect, Gerry, that’s only enforceable if we’ve got people to enforce it. We’re limited to the wardens that you’ve got available to you, there’s not going to be any more money for that, we know that, with budgetary pressures. F4: But it’s not about enforcing it, people need a solution. Kevin: That’s what I’m saying but the police do not have any more numbers either, they’re getting squeezed across the board. So, having an enforceable aspect of an exclusion zone isn’t going to be the answer because more and more-, F4: It’s wrong. M8: The other thing, I was reading in the magazine today, the IBE, that there are another 309 homes being built by Persimmon, I’m not sure where they’re going to be. Alasdair Morrison: They’re in this quadrant up here.
Page 229
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined M8: In that corner? Yes, so again, there are issues in Craigton Road to get in and out, so you’ve got the people coming in to drop their children off at school, and all the other people travelling through going wherever they’re going to. You’re just making a, you know-, Alasdair Morrison: But the road system, again going back to that point, the road system that’s been developed for Dargavel and was in the original masterplan going way back to the years that Kevin was referring to there, assessed this in detail. This was done by BAE, which is all-, M8: Okay, you may not change the road but you don’t have to put the school there, that’s what I’m saying, if the school’s not there, you’re not going to have so much traffic. Gerry Hannah: Sorry, this lady here’s made a couple of points and I’ve not been able to catch them yet, sorry. F7: Although, that infrastructure and that road design, that was what was proposed at the time but that was before we decided to put two schools with, like, over 1,000 kids at it, so you’re changing-, you can’t just keep that same plan for something that is now different. That road structure is there, we can’t change it but we’re deciding what to put into it now, so you’re making the wrong decisions as to putting it in, you need to look actually at, ‘What do we have in this road structure and how can we best utilise this structure that we have?’ Rather than just fire it all in, in the middle, and clog the road structure. Liz: Sure, firing it in. David: And on that point, the road structure as well isn’t fit for purpose as it is just now. All it takes is one car to be parked on Craigton Road and if you’ve got traffic going both ways, for example, it’s tailed all the way back. Liz: Think of emergency services as well, if you’ve got a fire, if you’ve got an emergency, if you’ve got an ambulance needing to come through there. David: Which is frightening right now, if there was a fire at this school and a fire engine had to get here at 8:45am, there would be trouble. M8: They’ve got ramps that slow things down, you’ve got everyone parking their cars on both sides of the road. So, just, you know, a problem area. Gerry Hannah: See, just in terms of the, kind of, road infrastructure, the road infrastructure outside the school is very typical to the road infrastructure outside any school. David: It doesn’t need to be there. It’s the same as the Edinburgh bypass, right, you must have known with the Edinburgh bypass it was a mistake to do it at that point, it doesn’t mean you just go along with it. Gerry Hannah: Sorry, just to pick up on that point, it is right and it’s right that it’s narrowed, the road lanes are specifically narrowed outside a school, so that it discourages people from driving faster because the space is less.
Page 230
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: And that’s why, to my point about parking provision. So, that’s why to my point, going back to it, I know I keep bleating on about it but whatever the new proposal is, you have to give reasonable, appropriate space for car drop-off points to stop-, Gerry Hannah: I think that’s the point I made earlier about pick-up and drop-off zone. David: (talking over each other) the drop-off zone because you’ve got 128 P1s, for example, and P2s, that you can’t just use a drop-off zone as well, you-, Liz: I think it was supposed to be a drop-off zone here that never worked, like, that was the whole plan for here. Yes, that’s because you have to eyeball your children. To be fair, you are right, I’ve read the Scottish Governments guide on roads and your narrow, tight turns slows down, speed bumps, it’s all-, you’re absolutely right about how it’s designed. But in the design, there wasn’t an 800 pupil school there. So, if only we had the Head of Renfrewshire Council planning here who might think, ‘I’m in charge of roads, we need to do things differently here!’ You’ve just signed off on, I think it’s close to 700 houses, up in that top left corner, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey’s to come, isn’t it? 509. With Taylor Wimpey, and Charles Church, and Persimmon, is it not closer to 700? No, it’s 509. 500, let’s go with that, so you’ve just signed off on that, there’s not a dot of green space within it, it’s just houses packed in. You guys are in charge of this, you can control the situation, you have to sign it off. I mean, there is green space within the-, Where? Within the planning applications for here. There’s, like, a pinprick sized green space, come on. And the fact as well, the original road network and infrastructure here was put in place based on the 2,300 odd houses that were initially planned. 2,500 but-, 2,500 but we’re now 2,000 over that, but still utilising the same road infrastructure that was planned for-, David: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: David: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: But Kevin, sorry, again, without-, I do need to come back to you in terms of the other point but the point here, was that all this land here was all allocated for employment use back in the original masterplan for Dargavel. The land that’s now been accepted by the Council (Timecode: 00:40:00) to change to housing, that was the 2018 decision.
Page 231
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: Alasdair Morrison: F4: Alasdair Morrison: David: ?: Liz: David: ?: David: Gerry Hannah: David: Gerry Hannah: Dougie: And you accepted it without changing the infrastructure, so again, it all falls down to you guys as a body-, Only because we’re short of time, but that’s because the assessment showed that there is plenty capacity in the road infrastructure and the road junctions to deal with level of development. If it wasn’t-, But not a second primary school. Well, the second primary school, as you know, is a new issue that’s emerged which we’re now dealing with in this consultation. But there’s very little that we can do to actually change the infrastructure that’s already in for Dargavel. Alasdair , that’s the holistic view that just doesn’t exist in Dargavel though, you approve houses, for example, we’re talking about the school situation just now. You can go wider than just the school in terms of, you keep giving land away for houses but you’re not thinking about health centres, you’re not thinking about parks. It’s all the wider things. There are no leisure facilities, nothing. Yes, there’s literally nothing for all these millions of children to do around here. What are they all going to do when they’re teenagers? It is literally a crime zone waiting to happen. It’s already a crime zone. Various voices talking over each other (talking over each other) the official consultation on these places. I’m sorry, again, just to be boring and bring us back to time, we’re probably just getting to that point of having to switch room. Are there maybe any last points to be raised before we do that? See, can I make just one last point? Because it’s going to happen and you guys know that, whether you pretend or not. Please stick a roundabout here so that when people are going through they can turn round without having to do U-turns. I come from East Kilbride, I love a roundabout (Laughter), I’ll be trying to get as many roundabouts as I possibly can. See, in terms of the acre requirement, is that because we are factoring in that community element to it? So, we’re talking about the sports facilities etc, I do drop-offs at Saturday mornings to Park Mains and the football pitches are busy with kids, and the noise is there, it’s vibrant. There’s nothing like that in Bishopton, we talk about carbon neutral as a country that we’re heading towards but if you want to do anything in Bishopton you’ve got to get in your car and you’ve got to drive somewhere. So, the location, if we’re going with that location, is it because it’s a prominent centre of the village, it’s going to be the hub, you’re going to have sports facilities-,
Page 232
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Hannah: It’s easily accessible for people, they don’t need to take their car to do drop- off on a Saturday morning, it’s right next to them, yes. Louisa Mahon: They’ll talk about that next door, actually, in terms of the fact it’s community use outwith school hours, so what that site will provide for community facilities that should have been part of this one as well. Kevin: What that’ll provide is, at the moment, one artificial pitch, is that correct, Louisa, still? Louisa Mahon: (talking over each other) go through the detail (talking over each other) and it’s maybe worthwhile, I don’t know if you were at the information session, just looking at what’s come out of the space planning through, sort of, community engagement process as well. Is Gerry-, are they-, ?: They’re just finishing up, so it’s not to rush you, they’re just finishing up answering questions. David: Just as a top tip, next time you’re designing a consultation and the decision is made after the elected members will consider the responses from the statutory consultation after the architect’s been appointed, after the detailed design, after the engineer’s been appointed, and after the main contractor’s been appointed. And then you’re telling us they’re going to consider maybe changing it, like, come on. F4: That’s been the issue all along, there’s been this complete lack of (talking over each other) David: That’s all there. F4: From the very outset. Louisa Mahon: The whole point was being in a position where, if the proposal was successful, we’re ready to go. If we’re not, we’re not. ?: Exactly, we were asked repeatedly to do that by the community. David: No, because I was on the Parent Council when this kicked off and I asked Steve Quinn, ‘Can you listen to the community before you make decisions?’ And the decision is made and this is all lip service, all of it is lip service. F4: It just feels like history repeating still. Liz: Yes, and that’s what’s so disappointing because we’ve been repeatedly reassured-, Kevin: And that’s what you’re going to get with Park Mains as well though, and that’s the big elephant in the room. Liz: But that’s not a public consultation, that’s just done. Kevin: Absolutely, that’s fait accompli. F4: (talking over each other) so, Park Mains isn’t being discussed at all tonight then? Liz: No, it’s not a public consultation.
Page 233
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: (talking over each other) David: I’d love to ask the person in charge of climate how seventeen double-decker buses from Bishopton and Langbank is acceptable to go to Park Mains rather than building a high school here. Gerry Hannah: If they’re all electric and hydrogen then that’s great. So-, Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Hannah: Just to mention a point there, and I think Gerry, for those that have come to one of the previous evenings but Gerry did give a commitment to come back at a later date and talk about the Park Mains issue, because I know that was something that was raised by a number of people. So, I don’t know what the format of that will be but I’m sure Gerry will be able to advise that. Kevin: (inaudible) this is why we’re doing it and we’re not going to change it because at the end of the day, it’s a done deal. Liz: I know, they don’t have to do a public consultation. Various voices talking over each other. Dougie: (talking over each other) Bishopton Primary as well, so with it being 2027 as it is just now, notwithstanding there could be delays, there is just that understanding of how that impacts the existing schools, so Bishopton being a top one in terms of, does it have the infrastructure to cope with the additional demand? Liz: So, Bishopton has been guaranteed that we will not move above 500 and-, Kevin: 512. Liz: Was it 512? Kevin: Gerry gave a summary at the last-, Liz: So, that’s not in the plans. David: I guarantee (talking over each other) Kevin: What is in play is a potential expansion here for additional pupils. Liz: It is a nightmare. Kevin: Whether that be more portacabins, whether that be utilising cupboard spaces that we’ve got here. Once we have the acoustics done during the summer then Gerry has already said that he is looking to reevaluate how many pupils could be accommodated within the current Dargavel Primary School, if it ultimately is-, David: Two years ago when this situation was identified, Steve Quinn sat in this school and said, ‘There are issues with acoustics, it’ll be sorted in six months.’ And it was supposed to happen in the October, it didn’t, it was supposed to happen last summer and it didn’t, you know that. And it’s allegedly going to happen this summer, two years on. So, when these guys,
Page 234
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined and nothing personal against you, professional and great people, right, but when your organisations sit and tell us something-, Liz: We don’t believe that. David: We’ve got no belief in it because every single thing you’ve told us has fallen down, failed and been incompetent, and I’m sorry about that, and you guys are picking up the pieces. But I’ve got no sympathy for that because we can’t cut you credit for that because we’ve cut so much credit. Why are the acoustics not fixed in this school? It’s unacceptable. Alasdair Morrison: You’ll see when you go through next door, maybe he would answer that question for you. Dougie: On the point, though, around having the lack of trust, in the 2027 plan, Bishopton having a capacity issue, potentially looking at expanding this one, what happens though, if we continue to give houses? You continue to have children enrolling for P1 between now and whenever the school is built, and Bishopton and Dargavel exceed their size? It goes to ballot-, Kevin: Alasdair Morrison: Sorry, can I just answer your question about house numbers because it has come up a few times. So, the house numbers in here in terms of-, all have planning consent already, in terms of an outline. That was dictated by BAE and as we’ve discussed already-, David: Can you just be honest on that though? Because part of the quid pro quo for you getting that land for free, for the new school, was that you approved those 500 houses, because you had held them because you have got a statutory obligation to provide schooling and you can’t do that. So, a quid pro quo was, ‘We’ll give you the land for free but you have to sign off on 500 houses.’ If you had said, ‘No, it’s not acceptable for our kids to have that, we’re not doing it.’ My point being, the 500 houses are already baked in, if you like. They weren’t. Alasdair Morrison: David: Alasdair Morrison: They are because if you look back, the original outline planning consents that have been granted for Dargavel give permission to the whole quantum. What’s missing, what you’re talking about in terms of the 500 they’re having up here in what’s the, sort of, north west quadrant or the north west sector, was what’s called an application for matters specified in conditions. So, it’s a detailed planning permission that shows the layout you referred to and the number of houses. David: And there’s a statutory obligation before you rubber-stamp that to ensure there’s schooling in place. And the only way you can do schooling in place is to propose this as a school and that was the quid pro quo for BAE to give you the land for free. Alasdair Morrison: I mean, you’re slightly correct and slightly incorrect, if I may, so the actual requirement to do it is at the time when the planning application is granted,
Page 235
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined which would have been at the time it was granted first and foremost, the outline planning permission for it. The Council didn’t do that because the Council believed that the school that was promoted at the time, the one primary school with 430 capacity, was sufficient. That’s the previous-, When was that? That was 2018. So, we knew at that point that it wasn’t sufficient? We did. No, no-, We did. We did but they (talking over each other) Various voices talking over each other. But the numbers have been thrown out, so at that point-, But we’ve touched on that in terms of looking back through the, you know, with hindsight, is that the Council recognises the decision then was incorrect. So, with hindsight, never mind and just plough on-, Yes, on top of that as well, we’ve maintained our statutory objection to detailed planning permission to any further house building because we know that we are (talking over each other) Various voices talking over each other Can I just remind everyone, I know we’ve recorded everything but can you fill in the online survey? Because that’s where you can put more detail etc, so, make sure you do that too. (talking over each other) for a final comment, I don’t feel we’ve been given anywhere near enough detail for this to be considered an official consultation. I don’t feel that we’ve had any detail from a roads and an infrastructure, and a planning point of view. But what you can do is, you can email and say, ‘Here are specific questions,’ and ask for more information. I’ll just get that answer, I’ll literally-, Gerry Hannah is the man who’s the Head of Roads and has been Head of Roads at Renfrewshire Council for a long, long, long time, so if he can’t give me that answer, what’s the point in me writing it down? I think he will be able to give you it, I think if you get him to get back to you. Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: David: Liz: Alasdair Morrison: Liz: Kevin: Louisa Mahon: F4: Louisa Mahon: F4: Louisa Mahon: F4: I’ve just asked the question, I’ve literally asked the question and I didn’t get the answer, so-,
Page 236
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Louisa Mahon: I don’t think he actually got to be able to answer it, to be fair, there are a lot of people wanting different comments. I think Gerry will be able to give you a lot of the detail you’ve looked for (Timecode: 00:50:00). Liz: Could we not just do that though and then stipulate that? So, that’s a question that probably most people have and I think one of the biggest concerns about the site is about the traffic. So, can something be put together so that people who aren’t sure or people haven’t been able to get their answers for-, because it’s not a good forum, is it, really, for detailed answers. F4: (talking over each other) that was the perfect time for him to give us a straight answer and there was no straight answer, it’s a politician’s answer, it’s horrible. Gerry Lyons: Okay folks, can I just, kind of, change the direction of the conversation. You’ve obviously got some issues that you want to explore a bit more and we’ll get some time at the very end to allow you to do that, of course we will. And if you think you’ve not heard answers then we want to find out exactly what you’ve not heard and come back to you on that. So, as I said, I’m Gerry Lyons, I’m the Head of Education, I’m leading on the consultation and this part, this workshop, is very much about roll projections, about the education bit of it because I’ve got the planning guys here who talk about timelines and planning permission, I’m not qualified for anything, the timeline for the building and all that kind of stuff. I don’t know about that stuff but they’re here for that. I can answer as much as I can about the projections and about things associated with the decision making. So, is there a question you’d like to start with? Would you like me to start with something? Really, it’s your meeting, so it’s over to you to either make a start or to raise an issue. F8: At the consultation meetings a couple of weeks ago, you put up a design for a new school which was, in my opinion, and I don’t expect you to comment, but in my opinion was a far better design for a school than this current one. Is that design agreed? You know, will you change it to be more like this current school just because that would save money? What you were proposing at the other school was a more expensive but, in my opinion, a better educational establishment. Is that plan agreed or what? Gerry Lyons: Yes, so what was at the information sessions and what’s in the booklet that you’ve got are the space planning recommendations. Sorry, are we referring to these? These here and these are the illustrations. Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: They aren’t designs, they are indicative space planners, we don’t have a design yet. There is no architect-, But you put it up at the information thing as a potential design. F8: Frank Farrell: It is, essentially to show what space planners have envisaged. This is just their aspirations of what the spaces could look like.
Page 237
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined It’s like a mood board. To give us a visual idea of what we could do. Liz: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Aye, one of the big issues which we’ve had come through the consultation has been the open plan nature of this school. One of the things we’ve done as part of the initial work on the new school is, the space planners have met with the Head Teacher of this school, with teachers from this school, and children from this school about the experience of being in this school. That’s been used to inform that. My view is that I don’t think a completely open plan arrangement is the right one, I think flexibility is what we want for our children’s learning. You and I had an interesting debate about walls or partitions when you were here before, which I really enjoyed. So, I think there are lessons to be learned from this, I’m going to feed those lessons in all the way down the line because I think we can deliver something which is more conducive to learning for all of the children, particularly for children with additional support needs, with a different kind of design. The indicative stuff from the team gives us a steer as to what that potentially might look like, architects and designers have to then do their bit, of course they do. But from my point of view, I’m taking a very strong view around what I think is important and that for me, is about flexibility rather than being tied into either completely closed or completely open. F8: Yes, and I would agree with that, and if you don’t get that design right, then through no fault of their own, children with additional support needs become very chaotic for everyone’s education. And that’s a shame because they then end up with a reputation that they don’t deserve because the building’s not-, and your idea of, it’s spaces, educational spaces, worries me. So, I don’t agree with educational spaces. Gerry Lyons: It’s just at this point, the definition of an educational space is open for debate. But one of the things that we’re really focused on is the inclusion aspect of all of this. We can’t afford to have children for whom the very building is an obstacle to their learning, we just can’t afford to have that. Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Lyons: Yes, I’m hearing that and we’re doing work just now to mitigate that. Emma Henry: Yes, so if I can come in on that. Gerry Lyons: Emma’s the Head of Inclusion. Emma Henry: Yes, so one of the things that we’ve worked really hard on over the last couple of years-, so my previous post, Head Teacher of St Catherine’s, Education Manager for ASN Inclusion and so, Head of Education with ASN Inclusion within my remit. So, over the last couple of years we’ve really looked at the, kind of, GIRFEC refresh and what that looks like within our establishments, and how we can use our spaces better for our children with additional support needs. Now, Dargavel, Bishopton and Park Mains were all part of that in terms of being early adopters, so they’ve actually supported what we currently have in terms of planning and our, kind of, vision for our estate has been led through the eyes of the practitioners. That’s the
Page 238
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined practitioners here as well, so you can appreciate that we have to work with what we have, and what we’re looking at is the professional learning programme that sits behind that. So, we have things like, for example, the circle framework. What I can do is, we have parent ambassador groups for additional support needs, and also information sessions that go into much more detail about everything that I’m talking about. I know it’s just a, kind of, flavour of it but those sessions are there for you to attend and join, find out more about that and about how this space and other spaces can be used more effectively for children with additional support needs. F4: So, what about just the general issue with the noise in this school? Because that obviously affects all children, both of mine, so-, Yes, so we’re doing some work-, I’ll take that one. Yes, Frank will talk to you about the acoustic work that we’re doing. Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: I know this has been issue since it opened two years ago, so there’s a building warrant in to carry out works this summer. We’re going to try and do advanced works, which aren’t warrantable works, that means we can do it without having a building warrant, the aspiration is to try and do some at Easter, some in May, so that in the summer we can concentrate on basically enclosing certain areas so that the acoustics are improved. We appointed a consultant to do this, as you know consultants who are involved in the design, structural consultant, so that is underway, that’s been designed. That’s got a building warrant in and we’re planning to carry works out this summer for the new term. David: Just, that’s been two years that pupils have suffered this, as part of the consultation for this school it was fed back that the community didn’t think that open planning would work. Are you the new Julie Calder? I hope that’s not offensive. Emma Henry: No, that’s him, I’m not, that’s Gerry. David: But you’re Steve Quinn, are you not? Emma Henry: No, no Janie. David: Who’s Steve Quinn? Emma Henry: Janie. David: Who? Kevin: Janie, at the back. Various voices talking over each other. David: Are you going to (talking over each other) I think the Director of Education should definitely not be on the periphery. Gerry Lyons: So, in terms of identities, the new Steven Quinn, the new Julie Calder (talking over each other)
Page 239
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined David: Steve Quinn never missed an opportunity to be in the limelight so I don’t think you should either. So, he sat here with Julie Calder and said to us that-, Liz: ‘Your children won’t be damaged.’ David: ‘They won’t be affected by this, this is a cutting edge design. I’ve got loads of experience.’ See that conversation you just had about all of these working groups, we heard all of that, and how this works. Then it opened and then within five seconds flat the Head Teacher was saying, ‘This is chaos, you guys need to sort it.’ Steve Quinn sat here, the best part of two years ago, and said, ‘We’re going to sort it in six months,’ and two years on it’s not sorted. You’ve got kids in ear defenders and I know that you’re now saying, ‘Well, we’re going to fix it,’ great, I’ll believe it when I see it. But what confidence do I have that you’re going to listen to what we’re telling you now about this new school? Because we’re going to potentially end up being in the same position, we need a cast iron guarantee as part of this consultation that you will not build an open plan school. M9: Yes, on that note, I know families that have actually preferred to go to Bishopton Primary although they live in Dargavel purely for that reason. F4: My daughter prefers the portacabins, my primary six is loving life in a portacabin because she can hear her teacher, genuinely loving life in a portacabin. David: I do love that phrase, ‘Loving life in a portacabin.’ Kevin: We’ve lost Parent Council members because they’ve moved the children because the kids have got-, Liz: Yes, we did that, my husband’s very involved in the Parent Council and when Eli was coming into school in primary one, my daughter was going out to Park Mains, we made the decision that, a combination of the numbers, a combination of the acoustics, a combination of the traffic because I am one of those parents that needs to drop my kid off and then get to work-, it was a no-brainer for us and we moved over to Bishopton, and I’m not alone in that, there are lots of us. Kevin: Yes, so just coming back as well to what you’re saying there (Timecode: 01:00:00). So, we’re talking about, we know there are a large number in this school who have got the ASN, kind of, needs especially with the sound and the hearing issues. We’ve already looked at, as well, and said that 2027 is our pinch point and that’s when it becomes really, really tight. You’ve already mentioned as well, Gerry, about looking at the numbers currently in this school in terms of trying to expand the capacity here to take that shortfall. So, how is that going to work? Because we already have such a high proportion of kids here with ASN needs, Bishopton’s in the same boat, we’re going to then be taking more kids into these smaller areas, we’re going to be squeezing them in like sardines almost. David: Steve Quinn gave the Parent Council of this school a categoric guarantee that he would not extend this school beyond those portacabins, are you backtracking on that?
Page 240
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: No, so-, Kevin: But on top of that as well-, Gerry Lyons: Where we are at the moment-, sorry Kevin. Kevin: Sorry, yes, so in terms of that, is it going to be a detriment to the kids that are currently here with ASN, the kids that are currently at Bishopton with ASN needs, by even just now, bringing in more and more kids, even up to 2027? Is that going to be an issue? Because I think it is, I seriously think it is. Gerry Lyons: I don’t believe so, I don’t believe so, because we have to manage the capacity of the school as to what we’ve got. So, we’ve got 595 in the school just now including the modular units or the-, Liz: Portacabins. Gerry Lyons: Portacabins, depending on what phraseology’s your favourite. Kevin: If you look at the side it says, ‘Portacabin!’ Gerry Lyons: That’s the company. Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Lyons: It’s a technicality, but I suppose my point is this, we’ve got 595 at the moment, the plans moving forward are to operate with a new school of 800. We won’t be at 800 when we open, it won’t open at 800. That should allow us to take this school down to 434 and operate within that. Now, there is a potential scenario where it goes up to 1,500 and that point, we would have to consider, David, your point, which would be that to meet that, if it gets to 1,500-, if you push me on it, I think it will sit somewhere between the two, between 1,100 and 1,500 but if it goes to 1,500 we would then be looking at 800 there and a potential extension to here. Are the portacabins included your numbers there? Not in the 434. So, they’re temporary portacabins, when would they be moved? But it would have to be (talking over each other) Yes, they’ve only got a-, Five-year. Five-year building warranty. David: Gerry Lyons: David: Kevin: Gerry Lyons: Frank Farrell: Gerry Lyons: Dougie: Can we just touch on the areas that are designed for health and wellbeing? So, you’ve got the MUGA, you’ve got the playground and-, the impact of the portacabins for one, but the other one is the gym hall I was going to touch on. The impact of the portacabins inside the playgrounds is it condenses the playground, so if that becomes a longer term solution it does impact the children’s play outdoors. We had a lot of issues where the gym hall-, because of the size of school, the gym hall needs to be used across the entire school, so when it comes to PE days for the kids, they’ve got to go outside because
Page 241
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined the gym hall has a rota, for example. The playground will have an impact on that, the MUGA has an impact on that, for example, as well, where if it’s raining-, Gerry Lyons: Is that a negative impact you’re talking about? Dougie: Yes, if it’s raining outside, for example, the MUGA can’t be used. There are many days that the kids will just do physical activity in their classrooms where they’re standing behind their desk doing yoga, for example. It’s not development in terms of the hand eye coordination and all that, kind of, good stuff. There’s a commitment that needs to be given to this school around how you future proof the health and wellbeing spaces for recreation, but is that learning being built into the new school as well, where you’re building a gym hall that’s big enough for the actual school itself? Gerry Lyons: Yes, is the short answer to that, we believe that the plans have sufficiently sized health and wellbeing spaces in terms of sport and exercise. There is a public pitch built into it which will not be changed to anything that-, you know, that’s built in and one of the things that I was saying was-, Kevin: That was the same here, we were told it wouldn’t be changed here (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: Kevin, but you know the issue there is-, Kevin: It comes down to money because (talking over each other) building it. Gerry Lyons: I’m not asking you-, Kevin: And it will come down to money eventually. Gerry Lyons: Aye, I’m not asking you to believe me because why would I? Because you’ve already pointed out, you’ve been told stuff that never happened. I think the difference, in terms of the pitch is, in some ways-, and I wasn’t here, so you’ll understand that there was an element that it was a, ‘If we can do it, great, if we can’t then there’s something there we could-,’ it is fundamental to the design of the new school, that it not only provides a high level education space for the children but it provides those facilities for the community, and the pitch is part of that. One of the things that I’ve been told by you, and I don’t know if you mentioned it, David, but I know that George Morrison talked about the fact that he’s taking his teams all over the place to play, Bishopton Football Club. Kevin: I’ve told you, I’ve been refereeing games with Bishopton over 35’s, for instance, at Toryglen-, Gerry Lyons: Aye, I’m not that concerned about Bishopton over 35’s (talking over each other) that’s from a football perspective. Kevin: (talking over each other) but it is, that is our community. Gerry Lyons: I agree completely. M9: I play for the Bishopton over 35s and we play in Scotstoun.
Page 242
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: Sorry, I’m only concerned about-, Kevin: Scotstoun, Toryglen. Gerry Lyons: No, but your point’s a good one. Dougie: But you have to get in a car, it’s back to the original point I made in the last one, which is, we’re in a society where we want to become carbon neutral. For anything that we want to do in Bishopton, you’re getting in a car and you have to drive somewhere. Gerry Lyons: Absolutely, so that’s why, as I said at the start, one of the key principles of this is, community facility. So, that will be sport in terms of the pitches, in terms of gym halls, I’ve got dance studios we’re looking at as well, and other kinds of facilities for art and design, you know, that kind of thing as well. So that the new building actually adds value to this community and deals with some of those issues. Kevin: Is that a cast iron guarantee you’ve given us that you’re not going to be taking away-, Gerry Lyons: I don’t give cast iron guarantees, Kevin, I can’t even give you a cast iron guarantee that I’ll be here tomorrow. Kevin: Gerry, can you give us a cast iron guarantee that (talking over each other) is going to be a 4G pitch? Gerry Lyons: Kevin, do you not think that one of the things we’ve got to do is learn from mistakes? One of the mistakes that was made the last time was that people gave cast iron guarantees and didn’t deliver on them. Various voices talking over each other. David: You’ve just said we need to learn from mistakes, okay so the mistake is, you didn’t have a 3G pitch. Just say you’re going to fix it, it’s a little gesture, you’re going to fix it. Gerry Lyons: Oh, that one? David: Okay, no, at the new school. This consultation is about the new school, I could give you a list as long as my arm about this school if you want but I never quite nailed you all down to stating on the public record that the new school that you’re going to build is not going to be open plan. Can each of you just say that? Yes? Gerry Lyons: As far as I possibly can, and I know you don’t like that phrase but I’m going to use it, because I’m not going to do what Steven Quinn did which was to give cast iron guarantees he didn’t deliver on. Liz: What are you consulting on? Gerry Lyons: I am completely against open plan schools. David: So, is the new school going to be open plan, yes or no? Gerry Lyons: Not at the moment.
Page 243
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined David: Is it going to be open plan? Sorry, you need to speak so it’s recorded. Janie O’Neill: No, it will not be an open plan school, you have been very clear with us that that’s what you don’t want and I’m assuming that, you’re speaking for a number of parents around it. F4: Absolutely. Liz: I don’t think anyone (talking over each other) Janie O’Neill: So, we’re absolutely not in favour of building something which the community don’t agree with and which has not been conducive to-, David: So, if it costs £500,000 more, is that in the budget? Janie O’Neill: Can I just finish my point? Because I want to just talk about the open plan bit, because obviously when I’ve come in, that’s been something that you were talking about and you feel strongly about. You’ll know that at one point everybody wanted an open plan school, well, not here, generally, in Scotland there were lots of schools being built. I know that just because of my background but now, obviously, there’s a change around that, people don’t want it. You’re talking about your child being in a portacabin and enjoying it-, David: ‘Living her best life’ was actually the phrase. Janie O’Neill: And I totally understand that, so the other thing, which obviously, Gerry-, I know it’s up there, you might not have had a chance to look at it. The other thing has been about the voices of, obviously, the children themselves and what they feel better about. You’ve said your child is loving it, and I would assume that that’s the, kind of, feeling and background-, the feedback you’re getting from both of your children. David: The teachers do too, the teachers enjoy being in portacabins. Janie O’Neill: Yes, and again-, David: It’s quiet, it’s isolated and frankly, you don’t have kids in ear defenders, I mean, that’s embarrassing. Gerry Lyons: Some of the feedback we’ve had from the teachers is exactly that, which is-, David: Because when you guys aren’t around the teachers tell us the truth. When you guys come in, they tell you what they think you want to hear. Various voices talking over each other. Janie O’Neill: No, no, you’re talking to a teacher. David: It’s not funny either, it’s not funny, this is kids’ education. Kids are wearing ear defenders up there because they can’t hear. Janie O’Neill: No, of course it’s not funny. David: Children with additional support needs are causing chaos to other people, it’s not a laughing matter. Janie O’Neill: No, not laughing.
Page 244
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: Of course, it’s not a laughing matter. Emma Henry: See when it comes to, just to, kind of, touch on additional support needs, every child has a bespoke package if they need it, okay? So, we’re looking at every child individually, if a child requires ear defenders it will be for a reason, it will be part of their package of support. So, there might be reasons that sit within that, and it might be a busy space, it might be a less busy space, it can be for sensory reasons, there can be a whole variety of reasons. Liz: There are also children though, that started wearing ear defenders for no other reason than that their class was really noisy. Emma Henry: I can’t comment on that without knowing all the background (talking over each other) Various voices talking over each other. Emma Henry: Yes, and I appreciate that but what I would say is, that in relation to, when we’re looking at children’s individual support plans, it’s about really looking at exactly what they need in the environment that they’re in. Whether that be here, in the new school, in Bishopton, wherever it is, so it’s bespoke (Timecode: 01:10:00) to those children. David: If you go through that list, where on the list comes, ‘The children need a really noisy environment’? Where does that-, that they need it? Which child needs that? Emma Henry: Well, see in terms of the curriculum-, so, if we take additional support needs out of it, Head Teacher, primary teacher, there are different activities that require different levels of activity within it, so that’s why-, David: You’re playing football in a MUGA, great, shout and scream, that’s great but if you’re trying to do a maths equation-, Emma Henry: You could be doing something within your class and that’s why a flexible space is actually much, much better for that because that gives you, within your class-, David: And you would say (talking over each other) there are times you need quiet? Emma Henry: Let me finish, yes, absolutely. David: And the class next door’s doing the riotous act, that’s the issue. Emma Henry: Is that not what Frank was talking about in relation to-, David: About fixing it? Two years on, it’s not fixed. Kevin: What we’ve got just now, what we’ve got in this school, for instance, we have got areas where you’ve got two classes back to back, an open plan space. So, you’ve got no partition, you’ve got nothing there at all. What the teachers are having to do is try and plan their activities together to try and make it as good as they possibly can in terms of how it works. But that doesn’t always work because one group might have PE but it’s peeing down outside and they can’t get out. So, they’re having to do PE in their class-,
Page 245
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Dougie: Because there’s no gym space. Kevin: When somebody else is trying to do more focused activity. And that does not happen, it is really, really difficult. Dougie: Renfrewshire Council 2024, welcome. Kevin: Because of the way the school is designed. I’m just using the P1 because you can go and look at it and check, it’s so, so difficult. Emma Henry: I’ve been, I’ve seen it. Gerry Lyons: I’ve walked round the school and one of the things that we’re trying to say here is that-, we’re consulting on a new school, you’re telling us very clearly that the design of this school is not working for the children the way it was hoped. So, therefore we’re going to take that on board and do a better job with the new school. Kevin: What I’m going to ask as well, is that I really hope that when we’re doing that with a new school, this school does not get left behind with the children who are in this catchment area. Gerry Lyons: Absolutely. Liz: And Bishopton, specifically. Kevin: And Bishopton. Liz: (talking over each other) Kevin: So, Bishopton’s a bit more challenging because of the space but for me, we’re talking about a new park-, Gerry Lyons: Listen, don’t start Liz on what she wants for Bishopton. Kevin: I know exactly what Liz wants for Bishopton, to a large extent. But we’re talking about a new 4G football park at the new school, let’s get that turned into a 4G park where it is then, more utilised throughout the day. Even if it’s a 9V9 park, we can get some of the kids in there playing, using it outwith hours. We can make that-, F4: Yes, don’t make it that we need to wait three years, I’ve already lived in Dargavel for five years. Kevin: Don’t make us wait for that, that can be done tomorrow. F4: So, don’t make us wait three years. Kevin: Yes, that can be done tomorrow but let’s not make it a them and us mentality again with the new school and this school. It’s got-, Dougie: (talking over each other) down the line, we cost more money further down the line but we also invest in people right now as well. The returns would be exponential, you keep things local to Bishopton, people want to stay here, you’ll get your Council taxes, the rollover effect is massive, I don’t need to tell you that, but it’s huge.
Page 246
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: No, no, it’s a fair point and it is also a fair point, and it’s a point that certainly has to be a part of the ongoing community engagement discussion which is that this should not be-, and I’ll use inverted commas, so I’m not saying, ‘A second prize,’ to the new school. We have to ensure that what we offer all the children in Dargavel is a quality of education provision that’s equal whatever school you go to, and I include Bishopton in that. But some of that is about more than just the buildings, it’s about the quality of learning and teaching, it’s about the planning of the curriculum and all of those other issues. Certainly, what we don’t want is that that has to be done to accommodate a design that’s not helpful, so we’re going to work really hard to make sure that doesn’t happen. Dougie: For the record, sorry, I didn’t see your hand up there, the teachers in here are absolutely amazing, what they do with the mess you guys have thrown them, the collective mess of Renfrewshire Council (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: I met with them during an in-service day and I was really, really impressed with them. Emma Henry: Yes, they’re brilliant. Gerry Lyons: Really impressed with the Head Teacher, so you’ve got great teachers working with it. They gave me a loud message as well, they didn’t say something different to what you’re saying to me today. So, we hear what you’re saying. Chris Dalrymple: If I can very quickly (talking over each other) Dougie: Honestly, this lady puts her hand up, everybody else just butts in, she needs to speak because (talking over each other) F7: We asked a question at the start, was the design agreed and we have actually really enjoyed looking at the school, and we really do think it’s a very good school. So, we would really hope that this is what the school looks like and, I guess, I have two questions. My first question is, what are the barriers for this school to not look like this? Obviously, cost being one but are there any other barriers? Then my second question is, if the design of the school is not currently agreed, when would you envisage that you would have a design ready for? Because I, kind of, saw this and thought, ‘This is what it’s going to look like,’ and I went home really excited. If that’s not the case, when would you be able to tell us? F4: Because there’s no architect at the moment. Gerry Lyons: So, the design, the colleagues will be able to take you through that. Chris Dalrymple: If I can very quickly-, because that’s perfect, that’s the perfect lead in to what I was going to say. So, my name’s Chris Dalrymple, I’m the Head of Facilities and Property Services, and with my colleague Frank, we’re going to be responsible for projecting managing and building this building. Exactly as you have said there, we’re going to listen, that’s why we’re here tonight, to listen, to make sure that the mistakes that were made here aren’t made again, and Frank and the team that will project manage this will take it on
Page 247
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined board. We can’t do a proper design until we know the exact site. So, we’ve talked about passive house, net zero, next door etc, for us to get the orientation, the site, the design, the build, the topography, we need to know that site first. But Frank and the team are working in the background with Hub West Scotland to look at architects, designers. Space planning have done that, we did that for a reason, so it would help influence our design as we move forward. So, the question you asked there is, ‘What would stop it looking like that?’ You talked about money, that is part of it but we went to-, Space Solutions? Gerry Lyons: Space Zero. Chris Dalrymple: Space Zero, to help us do that, to influence it so that Frank’s project managers can look at it and say, ‘Well, there you go, we’ve got ready made plans there, how do we build this into our design so we can get it looking like that?’ We can look at making sure it’s not fully open plan, that we listen as part of this, because what I don’t want to do is, no offence, be sitting here in three years and saying, ‘Chris you’ve sat here and said you were going to listen to us,’ that’s why we’re here tonight, to listen. F7: So, the Space Zero people, they’re architects or designers, they’re not teachers themselves and they might have-, they’re like, ‘Oh, this is a banging idea, this is going to be amazing,’ and then actually you could probably ask a teacher and then they’d go, ‘Oh no, I don’t like that.’ Is that being consulted as well? Chris Dalrymple: 100% and that’s why we need to liaise with, not just Janie, Gerry and Emma but Gerry Carlton in here with other teachers, so that we can learn from that. Because you’re right, I’ve worked with Space Zero, who have helped us in Renfrewshire Council, our buildings recently, and it looked great on paper but when you went to actually, physically do it, you couldn’t quite do it the same way. So, again, it’s great on a piece of paper but we have to get it right, and again Janie, I think it’s right, we’ve got the governance we feel correct to review this at the Learning Estate Programme Board. That we’ve got people feeding into it, that we keep checking what we’re doing is correct and obviously speaking to the community as well. F7: Are you doing that quarterly, how are you checking how it all-, Chris Dalrymple: Our Learning Estate Board, I think is every-, Gerry Lyons: It’s every two weeks. Chris Dalrymple: Every two weeks. Janie O’Neill: Every two weeks, yes (talking over each other) meets with the Board every two weeks. Gerry Lyons: So, we’ve got a Project Board-, Chris Dalrymple: Yes, we’ve got a Project Board and Programme Board. Gerry Lyons: So, between the two-, David: Will we be able to feed into the design, like, as a community?
Page 248
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: Yes, so one of the, kind of, conditions-, not so much a condition, one of the criteria for appointing the architect is that that architect is bought in to coming out to the community with the drawings, with the proposals, and just taking that whole community engagement. So, the short answer is yes, because that’s one of the conditions we’ve put on an architect. David: Can I put a niche request in for incorporating some nature friendly solutions, we’re in a semi-rural environment, you could put in swift boxes, it’s an amazing learning experience for the children to see birds nesting. You could build hedges for hedgehogs, that’s a niche request but can I put that, since you’re here? Gerry Lyons: I don’t know if it is a niche request actually, I think one of the big issues for-, one of the things on the education reform agenda was the feedback from young people that the environment and climate change is one of the biggest priorities in their education. David: It’s spending time in nature that calms you down, that’s the whole-, Liz: But you’ll have to make sure that there’s stuff for the older kids to do otherwise they’ll come in and trash it all. Gerry Lyons: Yes, and actually that’s been some of the really interesting feedback from the consultation, which is, ‘What can we do for the teenage population in this area, who at the moment don’t seem to have a hell of a lot to do?’ Kevin: (talking over each other) building a high school and getting better facilities involved with that as well? More football, more sports, more-, Gerry Lyons: Yes, actually-, Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Lyons: (talking over each other) persistence that I love. Kevin: But I don’t think I’m alone in that Gerry, I think that is a big concern. Gerry Lyons: No, you’re not alone. F4: Can I just come back to, actually, now that we’ve brought this up, and I appreciate that’s not about tonight, but something that’s sticking in my head is that you reckon that pupil numbers could go up to 1,500. So, straight away that rings huge alarm bells for me on the Park Mains situation. So, my understanding is there are further conversations to be had but-, Gerry Lyons: Yes, there is. F4: That’s a wild issue for me and by the time 2027 comes, my kids, it’ll be high school I’ll be looking at. Gerry Lyons: Listen, it’s absolutely one of the issues that’s come up, you know, throughout all the conversations that we’ve had. I don’t want to fob you off and I won’t fob you off. I need to come back and have other conversations about Park Mains, and I need to (Timecode: 01:20:00) bring the figures with a lot more thoroughness than I’ve brought so far, so that we can have that debate and
Page 249
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined that conversation. I’ve already got a date in my diary for the Bishopton Parent Council-, David: It’s already been signed off by the Council that they’re building an extension capped at 2,000, it’s fait accompli. Liz: It’s not a consultation. David: What are you going to be talking to us about? Gerry Lyons: We’re going to talk to you about why we think that’s the right solution and what might happen-, David: Seventeen double decker buses from Bishopton and Langbank, at a cost of £1 million a year, your figures, £1 million a year to bus them. Gerry Lyons: Yes, again, undoubtedly the transport issue’s one that we have to look at and you know that but all I’m saying is, in terms of the numbers, we’ll come back and we’ll have that conversation with you as to why we think they’ll work, whereas a lot of you think they won’t. And I get that, so that’s fine. David: You won’t listen to us and you’ll do what you want, and that’s the proven track record of Renfrewshire Council. ‘Don’t listen to the community, do what we think is best, we’re proven wrong, change the people and say, “It wasn’t me, I’m sorry.”’ I can give you 25 examples of that. Gerry Lyons: David, at no point have I said, ‘It wasn’t me.’ David: I think you did say, ‘I wasn’t here at that time,’ earlier, which is the same as, ‘It wasn’t me.’ Gerry Lyons: Well, that’s different, at the end of the day, we are here as Renfrewshire Council, we recognise what’s happened before, completely get that. And I think you’re right actually, I think you’re right-, David: Park Mains is not going to work, we’ll tell you that. Gerry Lyons: I think you’re right in the sense that you’re saying, ‘These are the experiences we’ve had before,’ I can’t undo that, I just can’t undo it. All I can try and do is be thorough, open, engaged and precise about what we’re trying to do. David: My attack’s not on you personally and you have to say that, but we’ve heard it all before. Various voices talking over each other. Gerry Lyons: That’s the point I can’t change though, isn’t it? Liz: But part of that is, you’re coming out and you’re doing a, sort of, public consultation and inviting views but it already feels like it’s already decision made. F4: Yes, it’s more of a token gesture, that’s what it feels like. David: The decision has been made.
Page 250
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: The public consultation on the primary is absolutely not a decision made. Liz: But it’s that or we say, ‘Back to the drawing board,’ and then we have to accept the risk of having to bus the children out to other schools. Those are our options, which aren’t-, Gerry Lyons: Not necessarily you accept the risk, you accept the risk of having to do something temporary but in some regards, that’s just us being fully transparent about the constraints. It might not be that you have to bus them to other schools, it might be, but all I’m doing is saying to you is that as a community, that’s what you need to know to make a decision. If, knowing all of that, you say, ‘Do you know what, Gerry? To get it to where we absolutely want to get it to, we’ll go to 2030,’ then tell me that. F4: Who makes that decision though? Because is there is a democratic vote? Gerry Lyons: That’s the Councillors who will make the final decision. F4: You know, so to me, to leave it to the Councillors is just easy answers signed off. David: The Council decide it, it’s whipped on party lines, the SNP have the majority. The current governing SNP have never gone against the guidelines of the officers, the people who are making the decision are these people here. That’s the fact of the matter. The decision is made whether they’re going to (talking over each other) Gerry Lyons: The technical final decision will be with the Councillors but we have a view that our proposal is the right one. F4: But that’s what makes tonight the biggest waste of time. David: Hands up if you think this proposal is the right one, of the parents in the room? So, that’s a resounding, big fat no. Gerry Lyons: But then I’ve got 200 online questionnaires that don’t reflect that, so it’s bigger than this David, than we just put our hands up. Liz: I heard that there were only 140. Kevin: There were 120 when I was at the Council meeting last week, when I was speaking to Louisa and yourself. Janie: 253 as of today. Liz: That’s good, that’s great. Kevin: Fantastic. Gerry Lyons: That’s great and those are not reflecting-, Kevin: Are we able to see what the feedback is? Because I know from a lot of people that have filled it in, what their views are. I would suggest it’s not overwhelming rejection of the site but it’s more because of-,
Page 251
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined F4: My worry is, when I talk to people there’s a huge potential that people that have filled out these surveys or whatever, they’re doing it lacking lots of basic information. Kevin: Absolutely. F4: Because everything’s a PR exercise, so you guys are giving us the information that you want us to have, we, that come to these, probe, we then actually learn, ‘Actually, that’s not fact, that’s not fact, that’s PR spin, that’s PR spin.’ David: Very few people look into the actual facts, they believe the PR unfortunately. F4: Exactly. David: And the Council rely on that apathy and that’s why it’s-, Gerry Lyons: I’m going to come back to that point. F4: It’s terrifying. Kevin: What I’m hearing from people that I know have filled out the survey, is they feel that they’ve got to accept site E1 because if they don’t, they don’t have a school by 2027 and it’s likely to be mid 2030s before a solution is delivered. F4: Yes, this man’s had his hand up. M10: You just mentioned E1 as well there but we also talked about, you weren’t in the room of course, but the previous session looked at plot 22. Is there scope within the Council to consider a joint or split school that would look at primary and secondary on a bigger space? Is that ever on the plans-, ?: 22 looks good for that. M10: Yes, exactly and is that ever a consideration? Gerry Lyons: I think it’s been considered and for reasons-, I’ve not been involved in that consideration, and that’s not me saying, ‘It’s nothing to do with me,’ so I think the decision was made that it wasn’t the right option. M10: Should that have gone to public consultation? F4: Yes. Gerry Lyons: No, it doesn’t have to go to public consultation. Kevin: It has been considered, however, local elected members have decided that they do not want a high school in Bishopton. They want to extend Park Mains because that was always what Park Mains was built and designed for. So, Park Mains was built so that it could be extended if required. They were basing that on the 2,000 number of houses, 2,500, so they’ve decided that regardless, they are going to extend Park Mains because if they don’t, it leaves Park Mains sitting between 800 and 1,000 pupils which is half-, Gerry Lyons: It leaves it sitting between 650 and 800. Kevin: Well, that’s not what’s been shown by Edge Analytics. David: The extension’s not (talking over each other)
Page 252
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Gerry Lyons: Dougie: Gerry Lyons: Kevin: Gerry Lyons: Kevin: Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Various voices talking over each other. Anyway, listen, I have to be aware of time. It’s 8:45, we’ve got to get the janny home, so I’m going to take one more question and then we’ll go in next door and finish for nine o’clock. The Park Mains discussion is, you know, beyond this, this is a statutory consultation that finishes at a particular time and I’m more than happy to come back and have further discussion about Park Mains. Yes, sorry, you’ve got the last one. I mentioned about gym and recreation earlier, and I just wanted to have on record as well about lunch facilities and the lunch hall. There’s a situation just now where the lunch hall, even though it’s spaced across, there’s a rota for lunches, if you’re packed lunch or you’re getting facilities at the school, then you can’t actually sit together because there’s not enough space. So, you’ve got some kids actually sitting having their lunch in the classroom just now, so that has to be something that’s addressed in the new school, but if you’re expanding the school in the future as well, in terms of using portacabins etc, you have to consider wider facilities. We have to consider that, okay, thank you. Can I just (talking over each other) No, that was the last one, Kevin, thank you. No, no, that’s time, we’ve got to end. Come through next door and (talking over each other) Various voices and background noise from 01:27:00 to end of recording. There was a reason we could not build on a hill because that is what I’ve been told by Alasdair Morrison. We cannot build the school on a hill but one of the big things that we’re getting from the kids-, it’s very expensive but apart from money, one of the things we’re getting from the kids is they-, Money’s a factor. It is a factor but it can’t be the main driver when we’re in this position. What we’re getting from the kids and teacher is that they are loving having direct access to outside space. If we build a new school, we’re not going to build it all on the one level because it’s impossible, we’re going to have to build it the same as we have here, up the level. If that was on a hill, for instance, then we have got direct access, top floor out at the back, ground floor out at the bottom, but there is still that potential. So, is there a reason why that cannot even be looked at? Because that’s one of the things which is (talking over each other). It wasn’t, when I spoke to Alasdair , a lot of the sites were discounted because it was on hill, it would be expensive, and that was literally it. It wasn’t looked at, the other benefits. To be honest, that is a big part of it, Kevin, is finance (inaudible) But why (inaudible) got to? Because what we were told was, ‘We need to fix this, we’ve not set a budget but this is what we expect it to cost.’ So, we’ve not told been told (talking over each other) exactly. But if it was to cost 70 million to get the right solution then it’s £70 million, whereas what we’re doing just now is, we’re saying, ‘This is our budget now.’ So, we are then
Page 253
Dargavel Primary 05.03.24 B session, second room combined Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Chris Dalrymple: Gerry Hannah: Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Chris Dalrymple: Kevin: Gerry Lyons: Chris Dalrymple: (inaudible), so what the lady said as well, ‘Are there any reasons why it won’t look like what’s on the actual board?’ We’re saying, ‘Because that is our budget, that’s what we’re tied to now.’ No, that’s a different answer (inaudible) We’ll be criticised if we build something expensive, we’ll be criticised if we don’t do it on the site that’s the preference. You’re bringing in well over £10 million a year already from this development, Council tax, well over. We don’t get our bins emptied, we get our bins emptied at the house but we’ve got to pay for all the (inaudible) round about, the paths and whatever else, (inaudible). We pay for the grass cutting, we’ve not got a leisure centre, we’ve got to go to Erskine and Renfrew. We don’t get anything here at all but all that money’s going into the pot, but there’s nothing coming back. I suppose, the only answer is, it’s not going into our pot, if you know what I mean, so again-, Aye, but that’s what I’m saying, it’s one of the ones of saying, ‘Right okay, we can’t make it too expensive but you’ve got to make sure you get it right.’ For me, it’s getting right and it might cost an extra £10 million but you get it right because (inaudible) the kids ultimately. I suppose, the biggest thing is, we’ll be led by Alasdair and finance etc. We will know exactly what our budget is and we will build-, (talking over each other) it might sound negative, but it’s a fact, that’s the harsh realities of-, Anyway, let’s go in. I just wanted to ask you because I know we spoke on the phone (Timecode: 01:30:00) a couple of times, any problems with the school crossing patrol? (inaudible) much, much better. Good. But it’s really the ones where we are (inaudible for several seconds) It’s just so busy and (inaudible) Listen, at the end of the day, I’m chairing the meeting and whether it suits you or not, I’m not going to have a show of hands. We have a very detailed process, we’ve got an online (talking over each other) (talking over each other) Recording ends.
Page 254
Appendix G Parent Council 29th January 2024 Subcommittee for fundraising Gerry What the consultation is: Process – talk through Gerry – solution for whole of Renfrewshire Children Community engagement - not necessarily get what you want - Proposal – only a relevant proposal - Build a second PS in Dargavel on site identified - Adjust catchment areas - New 800 pupils – sufficient based on projection of Edge Analytics - Copies of proposal in school - 2 drop in sessions – conversation café – 9am-2pm – 8th February - Drop in online – 8th February - 4 evening sessions – all depts represented - 19th February public meeting - 2 more evening sessions - 2nd public meeting - Online questionnaire - Is this the only proposal – Liz – this is a proposal - Do you own the site? o 100% we own the site - Standard consultation is done on one proposal if people put forward another proposal needs to be listened to - If no solution by August 27 – pupils may need to go out with Bishopton Primary - Edge Analytics – recognised leaders in the filed - Has it been used on a similar development - Yes
Page 255
Appendix H Kevin McIntyre Chairperson Dargavel Primary Parent Council Janie O’Neill Childrens Services Renfrewshire Council Renfrewshire House Cotton Street Paisley PA1 1TZ Subject: Response to New Dargavel Primary School Consultation Dear Janie, I am writing on behalf of the Parent Council to formally address our objections to the proposed site E1 for the new Dargavel Primary School as part of the ongoing consultation process. Our primary concern centres around the safety implications associated with site E1, particularly regarding traffic risks and proximity to water courses. We firmly believe that the proposed location poses an intolerable risk to the safety of our children, with inadequate infrastructure to support the anticipated volumes of traffic and foot traffic. Additionally, the strain on the footpath network and the proximity to water courses heightens safety concerns, particularly for the youngest children attending the current primary school and the proposed school. Furthermore, we are deeply troubled by the flawed nature of the consultation process thus far. From the outset, there have been instances of information being withheld or presented incompletely, seemingly to validate the predetermined selection of site E1. The divisive narrative surrounding the necessity of site E1, coupled with the exclusion of alternative sites from the consultation, only reinforces our belief that the consultation process has been biased and lacking in transparency. It is evident from this process that the council are continuing to simply pay lip service to residents rather than enacting the promises made in light of the 'Bowles' report to actively listen to the community to repair trust and confidence. It is our contention that the Education Department and Renfrewshire Council have failed to learn from past mistakes, as evidenced by the disregard for community input and the continued neglect of the needs of Bishopton residents. By proceeding with the current proposed site at E1 coupled with failing to develop proposals for a secondary school to serve the Bishopton area shows the complete disdain that the local
Page 256
Appendix I Bishopton Community Council – Excerpt of Minute of meeting 6.3.24 Primary School Consultation Louisa stated that there had been a leaflet drop throughout the area although this was late in some areas. She urged people to do the online survey, or to contact them directly. Further copies of the consultation documents would be sent to David for distribution. Gerry stated the consultation was for the second primary school for Dargavel, he would take any questions, and if unable to answer he would get back to David. He said he, and RC were now trying to rectify the lack of communication and trust between the residents and RC. A list of questions had been submitted to Gerry prior to the meeting, many of which were of concerns about the state Bishopton Primary School, - it needs repairs, it is over 60 years old, the grounds were a disgrace and what was the “end of life” plan for BPS. Gerry replied that there was limited funding for the existing school’s estate , and while BPS was “a wind and water tight structure, and was a welcoming environment for education”, he was well aware of the impact Dargavel had had on the school. Sam Marshalsay felt that the impact on BPS was being downplayed. In the rush to re-configure the school for the increase in pupils from Dargavel, much of the school’s resources were disposed of due to lack of storage as all space was required for teaching. Sam stated RC does not seem to realize the scale of investment needed in the buildings and playground. Gerry said he would speak with the Head Teacher to get a better understanding, but that the Parent Council MUST be involved. He stated there were 62 educational facilities in Renfrewshire, all requiring maintenance. BPS was classed as “B” on a condition survey and would be maintained “fit for purpose”. In a letter to Gerry the point was made that the outdoor learning area was in effect useless as it was continuously vandalized (despite CCTV), a plea that security of the site was more important than fence painting! It was also noted that some windows in the school do not open, and it gets very stuffy in warm weather! Also that the library roof had leaked for 9 years! It was stated that BPS “must not be left behind”, but also that Dargavel PS must not be left behind either! Gerry said he would try to find ways of funding improvements, e.g. fence painting. but was mindful of the need to “triage” requirements for the whole schools estate. The Learning Estate is looked at Annually! BPS was highly rated by HMI. The vandalism was regarded as a symptom of there being little or nothing for teenagers to do. There was no transport to Erskine, where PMHS offered some activity. Gerry stated he was happy to back a bigger discussion on activities for teenagers. Alan Brown referred back to the original S75 which had included community facilities, but RC and BAE had removed them. He urged that no more houses should be built until all current problems are resolved. David Love (Planning) said that since planning approval had been granted, it would not be possible to do that! Ms Ure accepted the appalling situation and apologised for it and stated that BPS would NOT be ignored. This lack of facilities led on to a discussion around the possibility of a secondary campus in the Bishopton/Dargavel area, and the capacity of PMHS in the future. A lively discussion around the pupil numbers ensued, with Alan Brown taking to the whiteboard to explain his calculations :- BPS capacity 519, DPS design capacity 430, new Primary School design capacity 800. Total pupils in Darg/Bish 1750. This is equivalent to approx 250 pupils per year. For the 6 years of secondary this could be 1500 pupils at PMHS from the Bishopton Dargavel area alone. With the Council capping PMHS at 2000 pupils this leaves only 500 places for all pupils from Erskine, Inchinnan and Langbank which does not seem reasonable. Mr Lyons stood by the projected pupil numbers supplied by Edge Analytics (consultants engaged by RC), stating there were NO scenarios from Edge Analytics showing more than 2159, which included 160 llacing requests (which would be
Page 257
Appendix J Responses to the consulta�on survey can be found here htps://www.renfrewshire.gov.uk/ Dargavel-school-consulta�on – this data only includes those respondents who provided permission to publish their comments.
Page 258
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO THE DARGAVEL SCHOOL CONSULTATION Peter McColl PETER MCCOLL LIMITED | SOCIAL RESEARCH Appendix K
Page 259
1 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................... 4 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES ............................................................................................................................ 6 QUESTION 4: PLEASE CONFIRM YOU HAVE READ THE STATUTORY CONSULTATION DOCUMENT (FULL DOCUMENT) ... 6 QUESTION 5: WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR INTEREST IN THIS CONSULTATION? ........................ 6 QUESTION 6: PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER YOU ARE HAPPY FOR YOUR COMMENTS TO BE MADE PUBLIC? ................. 6 QUESTION 7: TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL SHOULD BE BUILT IN DARGAVEL VILLAGE? ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 QUESTION 8: CAN YOU TELL US THE REASON FOR YOUR ANSWER [TO QUESTION 7]? ............................................. 7 QUESTION 9: TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE THE SCHOOL SHOULD BE BUILT ON THE PROPOSED 8.5-ACRE SITE AT THE NORTH END OF CRAIGTON DRIVE? .............................................................................................................. 13 QUESTION 10: CAN YOU TELL US THE REASON FOR YOUR ANSWER [TO QUESTION 9]? ........................................ 14 QUESTION 11: IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE THE NEW SCHOOL SHOULD BE BUILT ON THE PROPOSED SITE, WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE AND WHY?.................................................................................................................. 24 QUESTION 12: TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PROPOSED CATCHMENT AREA FOR THE EXISTING DARGAVEL PRIMARY SCHOOL AND THE NEW SCHOOL? ..................................................................................... 25 QUESTION 13: CAN YOU TELL US THE REASON FOR YOUR ANSWER [TO QUESTION 12]? ...................................... 26 QUESTION 14 IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS, IDEAS, ISSUES OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED SCHOOL, ITS LOCATION AND/OR CATCHMENT PLEASE DETAIL THOSE HERE ........................................................... 27 EMAIL SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................................................. 30 CROSS ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 36 ANNEX: CODEFRAME ................................................................................................................................ 37
Page 260
2 Executive summary The consultation questionnaire enjoyed a broad response with 818 responses and found that there was overwhelming support for a new school. The proposed site split respondents almost evenly, with only 8 more opposing the chosen site than those who support it (331 to 323) and 161 respondents who did not express a preference. The most mentioned topics in textual responses included an urgent need for a new school and the need to ensure that amenity and traffic issues with a new school are addressed. Some concerns raised through the consultation relate to issues that are outwith the scope consultation, such as high school provision, and concerns remain about the council’s planning and decision making in relation to the Dargavel development. Discussion of findings There were a total of 818 survey responses analysed. The council initially received 847 online survey responses, but after removing duplication this reduced to 817, plus one written survey. Additionally, there were 15 responses by email or paper form to the consultation that did not fill out the survey. These were from 13 people: one had also responded to the survey and wished to make additional comment. Not all questionnaire respondents answered all questions, and many asked for their comments not to be made public. This analysis considers both the content and sentiment of all comments without citing any responses directly from respondents who did not wish their comments to be made public. The comments expressed by respondents fall into several categories. There is overwhelming support for a new school. 618 of those who responded ‘strongly support’ a new school (75.6% of all respondents). Another 96 (11.8%) ‘support’ it. This combined total in favour of a new school is 87.1%. The combined total of those who ‘oppose’ a new school is 77 (9.4%). Responses on the proposed site are much more evenly split. Those who disagree or strongly disagree with the proposed site very marginally exceed the number agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposed site and a significant number did not express a preference. In raw numbers this is 331 against the proposed site (40.6%) to 323 for the proposed site (39.6%) - a difference of just 1%, and 161 who identified themselves as ‘neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the proposed site’ (19.8%). A qualitative analysis of the textual comments revealed the most consistent comments raised about the decision to build a new primary school and on the siting of the new primary school fall into the following categories:
Page 261
3 1. The need for a new school to be built as soon as possible to meet rising demand – which is by some distance the most frequently expressed opinion; 2. Traffic at the new school and the existing Dargavel Primary School; 3. The proximity of the new school to the existing school; 4. The community should have access to the school for community use; 5. Some wished for the current primary school to be extended, rather than a new school being built; 6. Having two primary schools will result in division in the community. Over a third of respondents referred to high school provision, including comments that the Dargavel and Bishopton community should have their own new high school or a joint high school and primary school site. Whilst not part of the consultation – the council has previously decided high school provision, those sentiments are presented for transparency. Some comments made by respondents, relating to the council’s planning and decision making processes and the approach to consultation, are also outwith the scope of this consultation but merit careful consideration by Renfrewshire Council as it progresses its review of its consultation and engagement practices. On the terms of the consultation, the proposal to build the school enjoys strong support, and the site also enjoys strong support in its potential for a stand-alone primary school. Of the 331 respondents who disagree or strongly disagree with the proposed site, when specifically asked in question 10, around 223 (67%) cite concerns about traffic, congestion, parking, other road infrastructure and associated issues with safety of children as their main reason for disagreement. They express concern that questions about mitigation of these issues have not yet been adequately addressed. They say that the proposed site is too close to the current school. The next group of objections from this group - about 36 respondents, focus on the lack of a high school or shared campus provision for 3-18 year education Some of those agreeing with the proposed site or not expressing a preference, would also ‘support’ a shared campus with primary and secondary provision. Others are concerned that provision of other facilities (including community and sporting amenities) have not been adequately considered (1%). About 5% of those who object to the proposed site want the new school to be either co-located with the current primary school or be very close to it
Page 262
4 (including the possibility of rebuilding the current school). They cite reasons of convenience if they have to drop off/collect children from different schools. 4.7% of all those who commented (39) discuss a perceived lack of strategic planning or foresight by the Council, including the failure to address demographic change, rushing the decision, or making the decision based on financial rather than community or educational reasons. Smaller groups of objectors include residents who express concern about the loss of a Central Park, noise and light pollution, or needing the site for housing instead. Those who responded in support of the proposed site all agree with a single proposal. Those who disagree have expressed a number of different approaches, none of which have been developed, tested and analysed in the same detail as the proposed site has been. Analysis of the textual responses does not produce a clear alternative to the proposed site. Methodology The responses were grouped by strength of response (strongly agree through to strongly disagree), the nature of the responses was then analysed using a codeframe which drew out the key textual themes in each set of responses. The code frame is provided in the annex. Having ascertained the key themes and applied a codeframe, it was possible to make observations about the qualitative data, which are reflected in the comments above. Responses on the Likert scale (Strongly agree through to Strongly disagree) were used to perform basic quantitative analyses that are presented below. This quantitative analysis then informed a qualitative analysis so that the reasons for respondents position could be understood. This took the form of sentiment analysis and helped to clarify what issues were being expressed together, and why particular positions were taken. This analysis helps to understand both the arguments that are most frequently used and the arguments that, while only infrequently mentioned might be significant. The qualitative analysis was then used to create a quantitative frame for analysis drawing on the most frequently mentioned arguments. This gives an idea of the breadth of feeling about particular issues. This analysis was done on the textual responses to the question which divided opinion most –
Page 263
5 “Can you tell us the reasons for your answer to the question: To what extent do you agree the school should be built on the proposed 8.5-acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive?” The responses provided by email were, except for one, not compatible with the questionnaire analysis. These have been analysed separately. The one that was included was a printed out and handwritten response to the questionnaire. Likert scale responses were added to the questionnaire, and the text analysed with the emails. Please note that percentages throughout the report are rounded to the nearest whole number.
Page 264
6 Analysis of responses There were a total of 818 responses to the questionnaire. The substantive questions were as follows (one question asked for postcode). Questions 1-3 asked for respondents name, address and postcode and there is no analysis recorded. Question 4: Please confirm you have read the statutory consultation document (full document) 818 respondents answered this question. 75 respondents (9.2%) said they had not read the document. The other 743 (90.8%) said they had. Question 5: Which of the following best describes your interest in this consultation? 584 Resident Parent/Carer 167 Resident of Renfrewshire 45 Pupil of affected school 42 Other The categorisation above is used to protect respondent identity. Question 6: Please indicate whether you are happy for your comments to be made public? 816 respondents answered this question. 380 respondents (46%) asked for their comments not to be shared. 2 respondents did not answer this question. The other 436 (53%) responded that they were content for their comments to be made public. Comments from those who did not answer the question and from those who did not wish their comments to be made public have had their comments included in the analysis but will not be directly cited. Question 7: To what extent do you agree a new primary school should be built in Dargavel Village? 816 respondents answered the question Respondents to this question were offered a Likert scale as follows: Strongly Agree – Agree – Neither Agree nor Disagree – Disagree – Strongly Disagree Their responses are presented in the chart below:
Page 265
7 • Strongly Agree: A significant majority – 618 (76%) of respondents, strongly agree with the proposition of building a new primary school. • Agree: 96 (12%) of respondents agree with the proposal. • Neither Agree nor Disagree: 25 (3%) of respondents have a neutral stance on the issue. • Disagree: 28 (3%) of respondents disagree with the proposal • Strongly Disagree: 49 (6%) of respondents are strongly against the proposal, indicating a notable segment of respondents with strong reservations or opposition. Question 8: Can you tell us the reason for your answer [to question 7]? 759 respondents answered this question. Responses have been analysed by the extent to which the respondent agreed with the statement on the Likert scale. The analysis below provides an overview of all the responses made. Some respondents raised multiple issues within their response. Those who strongly agree Population Growth and School Capacity: Code: INSUF_CAPACITY Strongly agree 76% Agree, 12% Neither, 3% Disagree3% Strongly disagree 6% To what extent do you agree a new primary school should be built in Dargavel Village? Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
Page 266
8 • The rapid population growth in Dargavel necessitates the urgent construction of a new primary school. • Existing schools, notably Dargavel Primary and Bishopton Primary, are struggling to accommodate increasing student numbers, leading to overcrowding and compromised learning environments. • Families moving to the area were promised adequate schooling facilities, but the current situation falls short of expectations, with classrooms at capacity and makeshift solutions in place. Long-Term Planning and Future Needs: Code: PLANNING_ISSUES • While addressing the immediate need for a new primary school is crucial, there are calls for long-term planning to accommodate future educational requirements. • Suggestions include considering the need for a secondary school and ensuring that new school infrastructure is designed with future growth in mind. Community Impact and Quality of Life: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Beyond educational concerns, there are broader impacts on the community, including disruptions to family life, property values, and community cohesion. • Families moving to Dargavel were promised local schooling options, but the current situation may require children to be bused to schools in neighbouring towns, affecting quality of life and community integration. Urgency and Immediate Action: Code: OVERCROWDING • The need for immediate action is emphasized to address the shortfall in school places and alleviate strain on existing resources. • Delaying the construction of a new school will only exacerbate the problem and prolong the compromised learning environment for students. Indifference and Lack of Expertise: Code: GOV_QUEST
Page 267
9 • Some respondents express indifference to the specific location of the school as long as it meets basic requirements. • Other respondents acknowledge a personal lack of expertise in urban planning, but there's recognition of the broader community’s need for action. Planning Failures and Council Oversight: Code: GOV_QUEST • There are a number of comments expressing dissatisfaction with Renfrewshire Council's planning and management, most significantly the failure to anticipate the demand for school places and provide adequate infrastructure. • Concerns are raised about the lack of foresight in building a school that quickly reached capacity, highlighting deficiencies in planning and coordination. Traffic Management and Safety: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns about traffic congestion, safety issues, and inadequate road infrastructure around proposed school sites are raised. • Proximity to existing schools exacerbates traffic congestion and safety risks, necessitating careful consideration of site selection. Parental Concerns and Preferences: Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT • Concerns about noise levels, safety, and ease of access for children attending schools in close proximity. • Preferences include a larger campus with adequate facilities, including space for outdoor activities and parking. Those who agree Those who indicated they ‘agreed’ with the proposal to build a new school gave the following reasons: Solutions and Suggestions: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL
Page 268
10 • Respondents propose solutions for future planning, advocating for facilities that include both primary and secondary schools. Urgency is emphasized in addressing the issue, given the ongoing population growth and the failures of the council's initial planning efforts. Community Impact and Concerns: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns expressed about the impact on the community, particularly regarding traffic and infrastructure. Respondents emphasize the need for proper planning to address these issues and ensure that new school facilities meet the community's needs. Need for Additional School Facilities: Code: INSUF_CAPACITY • Respondents highlight capacity underestimation and planning failures by the council, stressing the urgent need for new schools to accommodate population growth. The inadequacy of current school provision and its impact on children's education are major concerns, with calls for comprehensive solutions to address the issue. Criticism of Council's Handling and Planning Errors: Code: GOV_QUEST • Criticisms are directed towards the council's errors in handling the development, leading to overcrowding of existing schools. Disappointment with planning decisions is expressed, with residents questioning the lack of foresight in not building larger schools initially. Those who neither agree nor disagree Those who indicated “neither agree nor disagree” thought the following: Planning and Governance Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Criticism that the council did not adequately plan for the school's capacity needs, suggesting that Dargavel should have been built larger or extended. • There is a demand for a broader approach to addressing both short- term primary school capacity and long-term secondary school needs.
Page 269
11 • Some respondents believe the village is already large enough and that further housing development may not warrant the need for a new school. Location and Community Impact Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT • Respondents suggest exploring other sites within the Bishopton area for the school, not just limiting to Dargavel. • There's dissatisfaction with the council's handling, with concerns about the village's expansion and its impact on the need for more schools. • Some respondents feel unaffected by the proposal due to not having children attending the local schools. School Size and Scope Code: EDUCATION_QUALITY • There is a desire for a larger combined primary and secondary school to cater to future growth. • Some argue that a high school would be a better addition considering future capacity needs. • Suggestions are made for a larger school that includes nursery, primary, and secondary levels to address long-term needs. Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concern about increased traffic due to the addition of more houses and a new school, particularly noting the strain on current roads. • There's a call for the school to be built in an area that can accommodate its needs without negatively impacting the village. • Ideally, existing infrastructure such as roads and the primary school would be improved rather than building entirely new facilities. Those who disagree Those who indicated they ‘disagree’ with the proposal to build a new school thought the following: Campus and Facility Expansion:
Page 270
12 Code: OVERCROWDING • There's a preference among respondents for the development of joint primary-secondary campuses to alleviate stress on existing schools. Suggestions for extending existing schools are made, with concerns raised about the conditions of some current school facilities. School Location and Infrastructure: Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Respondents express concerns about the suitability of the proposed school location, emphasizing the need to consider the entire community's needs. Traffic congestion and existing infrastructure inadequacies are highlighted as significant issues. Secondary School Provision: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Respondents emphasize the need for secondary school provision to cater to the growing population. Suggestions include investing in existing schools or building new high schools to meet the demands of both Dargavel and Bishopton. Accountability and Oversight: Code: GOV_QUEST • Criticisms are directed towards previous planning decisions and management, with residents feeling misled about the development's amenities and infrastructure. Calls for better oversight and accountability in future planning processes are made to ensure community needs are met effectively. Community Impact and Division: Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT • Concerns are voiced about potential community division and disruption caused by the proximity of multiple schools. Respondents express worries about the impact on residential areas and the quality of education in hastily constructed facilities.
Page 271
13 Those who strongly disagree Those who strongly disagreed expressed the following views: Concerns about Traffic and Infrastructure: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns are raised regarding potential traffic congestion, safety risks, and existing infrastructure inadequacies, exacerbated by the proposed construction of additional schools. Desire for Comprehensive Education Facilities: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Respondents advocate for the construction of a larger super-school or campus that includes nursery, primary, and secondary education to meet both current and future educational needs. Call for Long-term Planning: Code: PLANNING_ISSUES • Respondents emphasize the importance of long-term planning to address both primary and secondary education needs, alongside broader community priorities and future population growth. Criticism of Past Planning Decisions: Code: GOV_QUEST • There is widespread criticism of past planning decisions, particularly regarding the failure to anticipate the need for sufficient school capacity. Question 9: To what extent do you agree the school should be built on the proposed 8.5-acre site at the north end of Craigton Drive? 815 respondents completed this question. 172 (21%) respondents strongly agree with the site proposed for the primary school, 151 (19%) agree, 161 (20%) indicate they neither agree nor disagree, 127 (16%) respondents disagree with the site, with a further 204 (25%) who strongly disagree. (>1%) 3 respondents left this box blank.
Page 272
14 Chart 1: shows the support for the new school on the proposed site: Chart 2: shows the same data, but with the strongly agree and agree figures grouped, and the disagree and strongly disagree figures also grouped: Question 10: Can you tell us the reason for your answer [to Question 9]? 702 respondents completed this question. This was the section where there was most divergence of opinion, reflecting the answer to the previous question. 172 151 164 127 204 Support for School on Proposed Craigton Drive Site Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree 323 331 164 Combined Agree/Strongly Agree and Disagree/Strongly Disagree with Neither Agree & Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree & Stongly Disagree
Page 273
15 The qualitative analysis showed that there were a number of key issues. We used this analysis to quantify the number of respondents across the Likert scale. Many responses covered more than one of these issues. For this reason we have drawn out the 4 key issues and analysed the number of responses that covered each of them. It is worth noting that, because one response may mention both the traffic issue and the desire for a new high school the number of times each issue is cited is greater than the total number of responses received. For methodological reasons it is worth considering these responses in each relevant category. So, for instance a response that reads “we need to build a new school as soon as possible, but the traffic concerns for the proposed site need to be considered” counts as both ‘new school’ and ‘traffic’. Where someone has left the text fields blank their response is covered by the count on the Strongly Agree-Strongly Disagree scale, but not in this analysis. Where comment fall outwith the terms being sought here, the response is not counted. Other issues that were raised in the textual fields are considered through a qualitative analysis. Given the split on the question of whether the proposed site was appropriate, this analysis is undertaken on the response to that question. The categories below cluster responses around the following arguments: New school: those who believe any or all of the following – a new school should be built as soon as possible on the site recommended. High school: those who believe any or all of the following – that there should be secondary provision, a joint campus, provision for young people from the ages of 3-17 or 18. Traffic: those who believe any or all of the following – that the site will have a notable impact on traffic, that this needs to be managed, that there are safety concerns, that access needs to be considered, that there will be an impact on parking. Facilities: those who believe any or all of the following – that the facilities proposed for the site have a significant impact on the appropriateness of the site. Governance: those who believe any or all of the following – that previous mistakes are significant in their view of the current decision, that there are
Page 274
16 questions about the competence of Renfrewshire Council to make decisions; or that they regretted past mistakes by the Council. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Disagree Total New school 122 71 25 2 0 220 High School 4 6 11 16 20 57 Traffic 19 14 27 66 157 283 Facilities 0 0 3 0 4 7 Governance 2 4 8 6 19 39 Total: 147 95 74 90 198 Those who strongly agree Community Consensus on Location: Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Respondents who strongly agreed advocate for a central location within Dargavel, highlighting the site's proximity to existing infrastructure, safety for children, and minimal disruption to green spaces. The consensus favours a site council-owned and already earmarked for development. Urgent Need for a New Primary School: Code: INSUF_CAPACITY • There is a pressing need for a new primary school in the town to accommodate the growing population and sustain future families. Suggestions point towards locating it at either end of Dargavel, emphasizing the importance of accessibility and minimizing congestion. Practical Considerations and Timeliness: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns about traffic congestion and safety lead to a preference for two separate schools, to evenly distribute foot traffic and minimize disruption. The urgency to begin construction to meet demand by 2027 is emphasised, with little appetite for prolonged debate on alternative sites. Community Integration and Accessibility:
Page 275
17 CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Respondents stress the importance of community integration and accessibility, advocating for schools within walking distance for most families and offering amenities beyond educational facilities. The proposed site is seen as suitable for these objectives. Support for Current Proposal: CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION CODE: INSUF_CAPACITY • The current proposal for the new school site garners widespread support, with residents citing factors such as proximity to existing schools, accessibility, and ease of transport for catchment areas. Emphasis is placed on the need to act swiftly and efficiently to address the shortage of primary school places. Opposition to Alternative Sites: CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Opposition is expressed towards alternative sites, particularly those encroaching on green spaces or located outside Dargavel, citing concerns about accessibility and community cohesion. Suggestions favour sites within the development itself. Those who agree Those who agree expressed the following positions, Mixed Opinions and Uncertainty: CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION CODE: INSUF_CAPACITY • Some express strong preferences or concerns, while others lack information or feel indifferent. • Lack of alternative options and urgency to address school capacity shortage emphasized. Desired School Features: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Suggestions for accommodating future population growth.
Page 276
18 • Advocacy for a shared campus model integrating primary and secondary education. • Concerns about space, facilities, nursery provisions, and high school requirements. Community Impact: CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION CODE: INSUF_CAPACITY • Respondents express worries about noise, traffic, and child safety. • There is a strong desire for quick construction to address educational needs. Site Selection Considerations: CODE: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Respondents prioritize population density, road network, and accessibility. • Some suggest relying on professional guidance for decision-making. • Due diligence and consultation with roads managers deemed necessary. CODE: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns raised about potential traffic congestion, especially on busy main roads. • Proper planning for road infrastructure, parking, and pedestrian pathways essential. Those who neither agree nor disagree Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns: CODE: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Respondents express concerns about potential traffic congestion, especially given the already busy main road in the area. • Proper planning for road infrastructure, parking facilities, and pedestrian pathways is highlighted as crucial to mitigate traffic issues and ensure safe access to the school.
Page 277
19 Community Impact: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Some respondents express worries about the impact of the new school's location on the community, including noise levels, traffic congestion, and safety for children. • There's a desire for the school to be built quickly to address the pressing need for additional educational facilities in the area. Mixed Opinions and Uncertainty: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS Code: INSUF_CAPACITY • While some respondents note strong preferences or concerns about the proposed site, others admit to not having enough information or feeling indifferent about the location. • The lack of alternative options and the urgency of addressing the shortage of school capacity in the area are recurring themes in the responses. Desired Features of the School: CODE: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Suggestions are made for the school to accommodate future population growth, with some advocating for a shared campus model that includes both primary and secondary education facilities. • Concerns are raised about the adequacy of space and facilities, particularly regarding nursery provisions and high school requirements. Considerations for Site Selection: CODE: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Respondents emphasise that the most important factors are population density, road network, and access when selecting a site for a new school. • Some respondents suggested that decisions should be guided by professionals and experience rather than relying solely on input from residents who may lack relevant expertise. • Due diligence, including consultation with relevant experts, is thought necessary to ensure the chosen location is suitable in terms of size and accessibility.
Page 278
20 Those who disagree Those who disagreed expressed the following concerns. It is worth noting that many of them are contradictory, with some disagreement coming from the proximity to the existing school and some from the lack of proximity to the current school. The strongest concern was about traffic. Location Concerns: Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Concerns are expressed about the proposed site's proximity to the existing Dargavel Primary School, highlighting potential traffic issues and safety concerns. Some want the existing school to be extended, rather than a new school built. • Respondents worry about increased traffic congestion, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times, citing existing traffic problems in the area. • Concerns are raised about the ability of local roads to handle the increased volume of traffic, with some suggesting that the roads are already too narrow. • Respondents living near the proposed site express concerns about potential noise and disruption caused by the new school. • Some respondents believe that the proposed site lacks suitable access and road infrastructure to accommodate the new school. • Respondents suggest that there are better alternative sites available for the new school, which would address traffic and safety concerns more effectively. • Need for a joint nursery, primary and high school: Respondents advocate for a more comprehensive approach to planning, including consideration of nursery, primary, and secondary school facilities on larger campuses. • Concerns are raised about the potential impact of the new school on property values in the surrounding area. • Some express disappointment that the proposed school site encroaches on green space originally designated as a nature park. • Concerns are raised about the need for remediation of the proposed site before construction can begin, potentially leading to delays in the project timeline. Traffic Management and Safety: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Respondents express concerns about the safety of children due to increased traffic and congestion around the proposed school site.
Page 279
21 • There is a lack of a comprehensive traffic management plan to address the anticipated increase in traffic volume. • Concerns are raised about the safety of pedestrians, particularly children walking to and from school, given the expected increase in traffic. • Respondents want to divert traffic away from residential areas and create dedicated routes for school traffic to minimize disruption. Council Planning and Consultation: Code: GOV_QUEST • Some respondents feel that there has been insufficient consultation and consideration of alternative options for the new school site. • Criticisms are directed towards the council's decision-making process, with some suggesting that cost-saving measures have outweighed community benefits. • Concerns are raised about the prioritisation of the project timeline over comprehensive planning and consultation, particularly regarding the needs of families in the community. • Some feel that the proposal has been rushed without adequate consideration of alternative sites and their implications. Infrastructure and Access: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Some respondents advocate for improvements to local infrastructure, including road widening and pavement construction, to accommodate increased traffic and ensure pedestrian safety. • Suggestions are made to ensure that the new school facilities are accessible by foot or bicycle and incorporate energy-efficient design principles. • Concerns are raised about the impact of increased traffic on local roads and the ability of existing infrastructure to handle the additional load. • Criticisms are directed towards the limited access points to the proposed site, which may exacerbate traffic congestion and safety concerns. Long-Term Planning: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Advocacy for a long-term approach to educational planning to future- proof against population growth and changing community needs.
Page 280
22 • Suggestions for long-term school planning that considers nursery, primary, and secondary school facilities on larger campuses to streamline access and resources. • Calls for the prioritization of community needs over short-term cost- saving measures in educational planning decisions. Educational Planning: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Respondents want secondary school facilities in addition to primary school facilities to address future educational needs. • Suggestions are made to incorporate community facilities such as sports facilities and meeting spaces into the school campus to benefit the wider community. • Some argue for a more forward-thinking approach to educational planning to accommodate future population growth and prevent overcrowding in existing schools. Community Impact: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Concerns are raised about the potential division within the community caused by the new school, particularly if children from the same family are attending different schools. • Some express concerns about the potential devaluation of properties in the surrounding area due to the presence of the new school and associated traffic congestion. • Respondents living near the proposed site worry about the disruption to their daily routines and quality of life caused by increased traffic and noise. • Suggestions are made to incorporate community facilities into the new school campus to benefit residents beyond the school community. Environmental Impact: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Disappointment is expressed over the loss of green space originally designated for a nature park, which some feel should have been preserved.
Page 281
23 • Concerns are raised about the challenges and potential delays associated with remediating the proposed site before construction can begin. • Concerns are expressed about the impact of construction and increased human activity on local wildlife habitats and biodiversity. Those who strongly disagree Those who strongly disagreed with the site proposed gave the following reasons. By far the most common concerns are those relating to traffic. Traffic Management and Infrastructure: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Addressing traffic management concerns, proposals include splitting traffic flow and enhancing infrastructure such as wider roads and additional entry/exit points to ease congestion in the village. Location Preference and Justification: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Those who strongly disagreed with the siting prefer Site 22 or 23 for a 3- 18 campus, aiming to address the educational needs adequately. Concerns are expressed regarding traffic congestion and property values necessitating consideration of alternative locations, some suggesting sites further away from existing schools to manage traffic and integrate the community effectively. Critiques of Current Consultation Process: Code: GOV_QUEST • There was criticism of the consultation process, which does not include high school provision. Other Suggestions: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA
Page 282
24 • Various site proposals are made, considering factors such as community-driven decision-making, safety, and minimizing disruption. Some respondents favoured a Park Mains High School extension and preference for extending Dargavel Primary also feature, emphasizing long-term educational planning and community integration. Community Integration and Facility Accessibility: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Suggestions involve creating shared campus facilities and ensuring accessibility for residents, emphasizing the importance of nearby amenities and sufficient parking facilities for staff, visitors, and parents. Environmental and Future Planning: Code: GOV_QUEST • Recommendations include utilizing greenfield and brownfield sites, emphasizing long-term planning to accommodate potential secondary school expansion and evolving community demographics, while avoiding hasty decisions driven solely by cost. Cost Considerations and Planning Transparency: Code: GOV_QUEST • Concerns about cost-effectiveness prompt calls for transparent planning processes and independent evaluation of sites, advocating for informed decision-making and consideration of alternatives like expanding existing schools. Question 11: If you don’t believe the new school should be built on the proposed site, what is your suggested alternative and why? 422 respondents answered this question. Of these 35 responded with ‘N/A’. 12.7% of respondents specifically suggested an alternative site. Those who responded raise the following issues: General Concerns and suggestions • Community members express the need for a holistic approach to school planning, emphasizing the necessity of considering both primary and secondary education facilities.
Page 283
25 • There are concerns regarding the adequacy of community engagement and transparency in the consultation processes. Suggestions include improving communication and ensuring more inclusive participation. • The potential traffic congestion and infrastructure inadequacy due to the new school constructions are frequently highlighted. Primary School Concerns • Residents are worried about the capacity of the proposed new primary school and its location, stressing that it might not be sufficient to handle the growing population. • There are apprehensions about the environmental impact, increased traffic, and disruption to the community due to school construction. Secondary School Needs • Urgent need for a new secondary school to accommodate the increasing number of children, with many calling for a community campus that includes primary through secondary education. • Concerns about overcrowding at Park Mains and other existing schools, with fears that they won't be able to accommodate future student populations effectively. Proposals for Community Campus • Responses advocate for a community campus approach, integrating primary, secondary, and recreational facilities to serve both educational needs and community use. • Calls for long-term, forward-thinking planning that looks beyond immediate needs to address future generations' requirements. Environmental and Safety Issues • Points are raised about the environmental impact of additional constructions and the need for sustainable, eco-friendly building practices. • There are numerous mentions of safety concerns related to traffic and the accessibility of schools, especially for young children and those with special needs. Question 12: To what extent do you agree with the proposed catchment area for the existing Dargavel Primary School and the new school?
Page 284
26 811 respondents answered this question. 44% (357) respondents strongly agree or agree with the proposed catchment (99 strongly agreed and 258 agreed), 43.6% (354) did not express a preference and neither agree or disagree, and 12% (100) respondents disagree or strongly disagree (49 disagree and 51 strongly disagree). Question 13: Can you tell us the reason for your answer [to Question 12]? 452 respondents answered this question. Of those 15 responded with ‘N/A’, or ‘no’. The responses demonstrated a desire for clarity and fairness. Many respondents emphasized the importance of transparency and community involvement in the decision-making process regarding catchment areas, highlighting the need for clear communication and consideration of all stakeholders' perspectives. There were some concerns about social cohesion, accessibility, and the long- term effects of dividing the village into separate catchment areas indicating a broader interest in community well-being beyond just logistical aspects. Positive Feedback: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Some respondents expressed contentment with the proposed catchment areas due to their personal circumstances, such as having children already attending one of the schools or foreseeing their younger children attending the same school as their older siblings. Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Many respondents found the proposed catchment areas to be logical based on geographic considerations, housing density, and the overall size of Dargavel. They believe the split makes sense for the community and facilitates walking to school. Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Several respondents indicated general satisfaction or acceptance with the proposed catchment areas, even though they may not have strong opinions on the matter.
Page 285
27 Neutral Feedback: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Some respondents stated that the catchment areas did not directly affect them or their families, leading to a neutral stance on the issue. Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Others expressed uncertainty or the need for more details before forming a strong opinion. Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • A few respondents acknowledged their lack of involvement or relevance to the catchment area decision due to factors such as not living in Dargavel or not having children attending primary school. Negative Feedback: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Some respondents expressed concerns about the proposed division of the village into separate catchment areas, fearing potential animosity, rivalry, or social divides among residents and children attending different schools. Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Some respondents disagreed with the proposed catchment areas, citing issues such as unfairness, inconvenience, or the need for alternative solutions, including a single catchment area for the entire village. Code: GOV_QUEST • A few respondents criticized the decision-making process, questioning the rationale behind the proposed catchment areas, the timing of the consultation, and the perceived lack of consideration for community needs and preferences. Question 14 If you have any other suggestions, ideas, issues or concerns about the proposed school, its location and/or catchment please detail those here
Page 286
28 478 respondents answered this question. This question provided an opportunity for respondents to air any other concerns, suggestions and comments. Responses are analysed and summarised below: Overall Lack of Trust in Renfrewshire Council: Code: GOV_QUEST • Distrust due to previous error and perceived lack of transparency and accountability. • Concerns about decisions being made without genuine community consultation. • Previous mistakes by the council have eroded trust. Primary School Provision: Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Need for a new primary school due to overcrowding and lack of planning. • Concerns about the proposed location and timing of the new school. • Suggestions to split Bishopton Primary School's capacity more effectively. • Request for football pitches with floodlights for school and community use. Secondary School Provision: Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Lack of secondary school provision in Bishopton/Dargavel area. • Concerns about overcrowding and adequacy of Park Mains High School. • Calls for a new secondary school or expansion of Gryffe High School. Community Campus and Facilities: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Suggestions for a campus model including nursery, primary, and high school. • Need for safe access routes, adequate parking, and traffic management around schools. • Requests for more amenities and facilities for children in the area. Council Decision Making and Planning:
Page 287
29 Code: GOV_QUEST • Criticisms of Renfrewshire Council's handling of education planning. • Accusations of ignoring community input and pushing through predetermined plans. • Calls for dismissal of those responsible for past mistakes and proactive planning for the future. Data and Consultation Process: Code: GOV_QUEST • Concerns about the accuracy and transparency of data used by the council. • Allegations of selective use of data to support predetermined outcomes. • Requests for comprehensive consultation including input from parent councils. Traffic and Infrastructure: Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Worries about increased traffic congestion and parking issues. • Calls for safe walking and cycling routes for children. • Need for improved traffic management to ensure safety around schools. Long-Term Planning and Future Needs: Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Urgency for long-term solutions that anticipate future population growth. • There were a number of requests for Catholic school provision in Dargavel • Suggestions for holistic planning considering all age groups from nursery to high school. • Concerns about the impact of current decisions on future generations and the community's viability.
Page 288
30 Quality of Education and School Environment: Code: EDUCATION_QUALITY • Concerns about the quality of education in overcrowded schools. • Requests for appropriate learning environments, including classrooms and facilities. • Opposition to open-plan school designs and preference for traditional classrooms. Email submissions Summary of Feedback There were 15 emailed submissions by email from 13 individuals which are separate to the online questionnaire. One individual submitted 3 responses. One individual had also completed the survey. These were analysed separately because it cannot be ascertained whether the respondents also responded to the survey. Preferences have not been added to the overall tallies, with the exception of respondent 2 who returned the only paper survey. Initial Concerns and Transparency Issues Code: GOV_QUEST • Email respondent 1: Expresses appreciation for the council's efforts but raises concerns about transparency and detailed planning, highlighting potential biases in the proposal. • Email respondent 2: Urges long-term planning, especially considering population growth, and suggests a broader approach encompassing community needs and future infrastructure. • Email respondent 3: Expresses disappointment in short-sighted planning decisions, advocating for a more comprehensive approach. Site Selection and Community Impact Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Email respondent 2: Supports the proposed site within Dargavel for minimizing impact on greenfield areas and emphasizes the need for infrastructure within the designated development area. • Email respondent 2: Echoes the sentiment for the school to be situated within Dargavel, citing responsibilities of Renfrewshire Council and developers to support the growing community.
Page 289
31 • Email respondent 4: Opposes the proposed site due to concerns about wildlife, noise, and traffic impact, suggesting a reconsideration of alternative locations. High School Provision and Community Engagement Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Email respondent 5: Criticizes past planning decisions and expresses concerns about the consultation process, calling for accountability and improved engagement. • Email respondent 6: Raises concerns about high school capacity and urges thorough consideration of secondary school provision alongside primary school planning. • Email respondent 7: Expresses interest in contributing to the consultation remotely due to travel commitments, but makes no substantive contribution. Infrastructure and Special Needs Support Code: EDUCATION_QUALITY • Email respondent 8: Highlights the need for adequate support for children with additional needs and suggests addressing existing issues before proceeding with new infrastructure. • Email respondent 9: Recommends considerations for classroom design, outdoor spaces, accessibility, and facilities for children with additional needs. • Email respondent 10: Advocates for equal consideration of existing residents' amenity and raises concerns about light and noise pollution from the proposed school site. • Email respondent 11: Advocates for a smaller new school and proposes extending Bishopton Primary instead to secure its long-term future. • Email respondent 12: Expresses frustration with the consultation process and criticizes the council's handling of high school provision, advocating for better solutions for children's education. Sports Facilities and Stakeholder Engagement Code: PLANNING_ISSUES • Email respondent 13: Seeks confirmation on plans for a floodlit football pitch adjacent to the new primary school, emphasizing the importance of sports facilities.
Page 290
32 • Email respondent 5: Calls for clarity on the proposed extension of Park Mains High School and highlights concerns raised by stakeholders regarding high school provision. Specific Site Concerns and Personal Impact Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT • Email respondent 4: Voices concerns about the proximity of the proposed school site to residential areas and potential negative impacts on wildlife, noise, and traffic. • Email respondent 3: Expresses disappointment in short-sighted planning decisions and urges consideration of long-term impacts on children's education and community well-being Cross analysis The key questions in the questionnaire that can be analysed quantitively relate to attitudes toward a new school and toward the proposed site. Therefore, this cross analysis allows the interdependency of individual responses to be considered. To do this there was an analysis of positivity towards building school and positivity towards school site. The number of those strongly agreeing with the school being built and strongly agreeing with the site was the single largest group – a plurality. The second largest group were those who agreed with the proposal to build the school, but disagreed with the site. A significant group strongly agreed that the school should be built but neither agreed nor disagreed with the proposed site. You can see in the chart below that the strongest poles of opinion are around those who strongly support the site and those who are strongly against the site. Taking those who support the site and those who support it strongly gives almost identical numbers when compared to those who do disagree or strongly disagree with the site. 323 respondents support, 331 oppose it. The difference amounts to 1% of the respondents.
Page 291
33 This data is replicated in the following table: Key: School ++: Strongly Agree with proposal to build primary school School +: Agree with proposal to build primary school School +/-:: Neither Agree nor Disagree with proposal to build primary school D: Disagree with proposal to build primary school E: Strongly Disagree with proposal to build primary school F: No opinion expressed 1: Strongly Agree it should be on the proposed site 2: Agree it should be on the proposed site 3: Neither Agree nor Disagree it should be on the proposed site 4: Disagree it should be on the proposed site 5: Strongly disagree it should be on the proposed site 6: No opinion expressed 157 123 124 84 129 1 10 24 23 20 18 1 1 2 8 8 6 0 1 2 3 12 10 0 2 0 3 3 41 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 Strongly Support Site Support Site Neither Against Site Strongly Against Site No opinion Support for School Build vs Support for Proposed Site Very Strong Support for School Build Strong Support for School Build Neither Against School Build Very Against School Build No Opinion School ++ School + School +/- School - School - - School 0 Site ++ 157 10 1 1 2 0 Site + 123 24 2 2 0 0 Site +/- 124 23 8 3 3 0 Site - 84 20 8 12 3 0 Site - - 129 18 6 10 41 0 Site 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
Page 292
34 Strongly Agree with proposal to build primary school: 156 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school strongly agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 123 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 124 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school neither agree nor disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 84 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 129 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school strongly disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site 1 of those who strongly agree with the proposal to build the school expressed no opinion about whether it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified Agree with the proposal to build the primary school: 10 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school strongly agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 24 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 23 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school neither agree nor disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 20 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 18 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school strongly disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site 1 of those who agree with the proposal to build the school expressed no opinion about whether it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified Neither Agree nor Disagree with the proposal to build the primary school: 1 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly agrees it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified
Page 293
35 2 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 8 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school neither agree nor disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 8 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 6 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site 0 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school expressed no opinion about whether it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified Disagrees with the proposal to build the primary school: 1 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly agrees it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 2 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 3 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school neither agree nor disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 12 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 10 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site 0 of those who disagree with the proposal to build the school expressed no opinion about whether it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified Strongly Disagrees with the proposal to build the primary school: 2 of those who strongly disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 0 of those who strongly disagree with the proposal to build the school agree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified
Page 294
36 3 of those who strongly disagree with the proposal to build the school neither agree nor disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 3 of those who strongly disagree with the proposal to build the school disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified 41 of those who strongly disagree with the proposal to build the school strongly disagree it should be on the 8.5 acre site 0 of those who neither agree nor disagree with the proposal to build the school expressed no opinion about whether it should be on the 8.5 acre site identified No opinion on whether to build the primary school 1 respondent who expressed no opinion about whether the school should be built strongly agreed that it should be built on the 8.5 acre site. Conclusion The consultation itself was limited to consideration of a new primary school for Dargavel, and the responses indicate overwhelming support for a new primary school. There were slightly fewer respondents who agreed with the proposed site of the school than those who disagreed. Those who disagreed with the proposed site identified several different reasons for their objections. The main objection to the proposed site focused on traffic, parking and other road infrastructure issues. Objections to Renfrewshire Council’s approach to delivering the current Dargavel Primary School and the current process were also identified, as were concerns about the Council’s strategic planning and governance oversight. Other objections – relating to high school provision, are out of scope of this consultation. The question of the catchment area will be determined by whether to proceed with the school or not, and if so, which site to use.
Page 295
37 Annex: Codeframe Insufficient Capacity of Current School • Code: INSUF_CAPACITY • Example: "The current school has no space." Governance questions about Renfrewshire Council • Code: GOV_QUEST • Example: " Far too many children in existing primary’s due to past mistakes with planning which requires immediate action to correct. Traffic and Infrastructure Concerns • Code: TRAFFIC_INFRA • Example: "Craigton Drive is already incredibly busy... The influx of traffic will render the whole estate as a giant traffic jam." Overcrowding and Overcapacity • Code: OVERCROWDING • Example: " Dargavel primary is at full capacity and the council need to accommodate the children affected for the future house builds." Location and Placement of New School • Code: NEW_SCHOOL_LOCATION • Example: "I agree that a new school is required but believe this should be built outside Dargavel, in Bishopton." Community Impact and Needs • Code: COMMUNITY_NEEDS • Example: " The school should be built in the most suitable location and the needs of the whole of Bishopton should be considered. Planning and Foresight Issues • Code: PLANNING_ISSUES • Example: " Be better in future at planning." Desire for Combined Primary and Secondary School • Code: COMBINED_SCHOOL • Example: "It seems prudent... to anticipate future requirements by constructing a combined primary and secondary school." Residential Impact and Expectations • Code: RESIDENTIAL_IMPACT • Example: "I moved to Dargavel... thinking that we would be able to walk our son to school... He is due to start school in 2024 and hasn’t got a place in Dargavel."
Page 296
38 Quality of Education • Code: EDUCATION_QUALITY • Example: "The current school is not big enough for the number of children... This will in turn put immense pressure on teachers and negatively impact the children's learning."
Page 297
Appendix L Summary of Key Issues
Page 298
Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Report by Education Scotland addressing educational aspects of the proposal by Renfrewshire Council to build a new primary school in Dargavel Village and review the catchment areas for the proposed new school and Dargavel Primary School. April 2024 Appendix M
Page 299
1 | Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Renfrewshire Council © Crown Copyright 1. Introduction 1.1 This report from Education Scotland has been prepared by His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education (HM Inspectors) in accordance with the terms of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”). The purpose of the report is to provide an independent and impartial consideration of a proposal by Renfrewshire Council to build a new primary school in Dargavel Village and review the catchment areas for the proposed new school and for Dargavel Primary School. Section 2 of the report sets out brief details of the consultation process. Section 3 of the report sets out HM Inspectors’ consideration of the educational aspects of the proposal, including significant views expressed by consultees. Section 4 summarises HM Inspectors’ view. Upon receipt of this report, the Act requires the council to consider it alongside any relevant considerations the council received and then prepare its consultation report. The council’s consultation report should include this report and must contain an explanation of how, in finalising the proposal, it has reviewed the initial proposal, including a summary of points raised during the consultation process and the council’s response to them. The council has to publish its consultation report at least three weeks before it takes its final decision. With all proposals the council needs to follow all statutory obligations set out in the 2010 Act. 1.2 HM Inspectors considered: • the likely effects of the proposal for children of the schools; any other users; children likely to become pupils within two years of the date of publication of the proposal paper; and other children and young people in the council area; • any other likely effects of the proposal; • how the council intends to minimise or avoid any adverse effects that may arise from the proposal; and • the educational benefits the council believes will result from implementation of the proposal, and the council’s reasons for coming to these beliefs. 1.3 In preparing this report, HM Inspectors undertook the following activities: • attendance at public meetings held on 19 February and 5 March 2024 in connection with the council’s proposals; • attendance at a public information session on 29 February 2024; • consideration of all relevant documentation provided by the council in relation to the proposal, specifically the educational benefits statement and related consultation documents, written and oral submissions from parents and others; • consideration of further representations made directly to Education Scotland on relevant educational aspects of the proposal; and • visits to the sites of Dargavel Primary School and Bishopton Primary School, including discussion with relevant consultees. 2. Consultation process 2.1 Renfrewshire Council undertook the consultation on its proposal(s) with reference to the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010. 2.2 The statutory consultation period for this proposal ran from 29 January until 26 March 2024. The council published the proposal paper on its website. Paper and electronic copies of the proposal paper were made available to stakeholders and interested parties. Written responses
Page 300
2 | Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Renfrewshire Council © Crown Copyright were accepted by letter or email. Public meetings took place on 19 February and 5 March 2024. There were 43 public attendees in total across the two meetings. The council also held several open information sessions and informal drop-in sessions for the public between the 14 and 29 February 2024. In total, around 100 people attended one or more of these sessions. There were 817 responses to the council’s questionnaire on the proposal. The majority of the respondents to the questionnaire were parents/carers of school aged children, or those that had a child attending nursery in Renfrewshire. Most respondents (88%) strongly agreed or agreed that the new primary school should be built in Dargavel Village. There is no clear consensus on the proposed site at Craigton Drive. Less than half of respondents (39%) agreed with the chosen site, while slightly more (41%) disagreed. The remaining respondents (20%) neither agreed or disagreed with the proposed site. With regards to the proposed catchment area, a minority (44%) are in favour, the same percentage (44%) neither agree nor disagree, and 12% disagree. 3. Educational aspects of proposal 3.1 HM Inspectors consider that the council has set out reasonable educational benefits for this proposal. The council estimates the completion of the Dargavel Village development by 2033. Dargavel Primary School, which opened in October 2021, was built for a pupil roll of 400. It is currently well over capacity with just over 600 children currently attending. The council’s projected figures indicate a peak in demand for around 1,130 non-denominational primary places in academic year 2033-34 in the Dargavel area. The proposed school would have capacity for 800 pupils. The main educational benefit of this proposal is that it addresses current and future capacity issues at Dargavel Primary School and Bishopton Primary School. It will enable the council to continue to provide sufficient places for children in the catchment areas covered by the proposal. The council state that the proposed catchment areas within the proposal will distribute the pressure arising from new housing development evenly across primary schools in Dargavel. The council have stated that a sibling guarantee will be put in place associated with the catchment changes. 3.2 Almost all respondents to the questionnaire, attendees at the public meetings, and stakeholders that HM Inspectors spoke to at Dargavel and Bishopton Primary Schools agree that there is a need for a new primary school. A significant minority of survey respondents and the majority of stakeholders who met with HM Inspectors do not believe that the proposed site for the new school is appropriate. Many of the stakeholders that HM Inspectors spoke to think there should be more time to consider alternative sites for the new school. However, there is currently no consensus on an alternative site. 3.3 Stakeholders raised significant concerns, both in comments on the survey and when speaking to HM Inspectors, about the volume of traffic that would result from two large primary schools being in close proximity. Stakeholders are worried that the road infrastructure is not in place to support the expected increased traffic at peak drop-off and pick-up times at the schools. Parents and children of Dargavel Primary School, that HM Inspectors spoke to, do not consider existing traffic management arrangements provide sufficient safety for children getting to the school. They believe these safety issues may increase should the proposed site be chosen. For example, children and parents say the footpath for walking and cycling to school is not sufficiently wide enough for the current Dargavel Primary School population. Therefore, they do not consider it could accommodate increased use by a second, much larger school community. If the proposal is accepted, the council will need to work with the Dargavel community to address their concerns as a priority. The council will need to ensure the suitability of the proposed site in respect of the road infrastructure and adequate safe routes, including for active travel such as walking or cycling. 3.4 The majority of parents that HM Inspectors spoke to are not confident that the council’s timescale for the construction of the new school is realistic. Stakeholders across both Dargavel
Page 301
3 | Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Renfrewshire Council © Crown Copyright and Bishopton Primary Schools do not want to see delays to a new school being ready for children by August 2027. They worry that there will be a detrimental impact on Dargavel and Bishopton Primary Schools if the new school is not ready in time. A number of parents that HM Inspectors spoke to in both school communities say that they feel constrained into opting for the council’s proposed site, so that their child may be assured a place at a local school. Whether the proposal is agreed or not, it will be important for the council to identify and share with stakeholders, appropriate contingency plans for all scenarios. 3.5 Children, parents and staff feel strongly that the design of the new school, and the provision of outdoor facilities for sport and physical activity, must be better than the build specification for Dargavel Primary School. The council acknowledge this and are currently making remedial adaptations to Dargavel Primary School, for example to improve soundproofing in teaching spaces. Residents in Dargavel Village, who live adjacent to the proposed school site, are concerned that the intended community use of the new school’s sports facilities will impact on the volume of traffic and natural habitat of the area. It will be important for the council, if the proposal is agreed, to continue to consult with stakeholders about the design of the new school, the facilities to be included and in considerations about the community use of the site. 3.6 A majority of stakeholders who met HM Inspectors at Bishopton Primary School stated that they wish to see further investment in their school. They appreciate that the council’s resources are limited, but they feel it is important to ensure that there is equity between all primary schools in the area. Staff and children at Bishopton Primary School have experience in welcoming and settling large numbers of new children to the school. However, they do not wish to return to Bishopton Primary School accommodating up to 700 children, as was the case when the opening of Dargavel Primary School was delayed. The majority of parents are concerned that any delay to the new school will negatively impact on the numbers of children attending Bishopton Primary School. HM Inspectors agree that it is important that all schools provide a safe and suitable learning environment for all pupils. 3.7 Almost all parents and staff who met with HM Inspectors raised significant concerns about the future capacity of Park Mains High School. This is due to the continuing expansion of Dargavel Village and other housebuilding in towns within the catchment area for the secondary school. Parents who met with HM Inspectors are worried that the council may have underestimated the projected school roll for Park Mains High School. Parents who met with HM Inspectors would like to see consideration of a 3-18 campus, instead of primary provision only. They feel that Bishopton and Dargavel should have more early learning and childcare provision. They also feel strongly that the community should have its own secondary school. The council’s projected figures are that around 1,000 young people who live in Bishopton and Dargavel will require to be transported to and from Park Mains High School each day. Parents that met with HM Inspectors do not feel that this is financially nor environmentally sound. Although outwith the scope of this consultation, it would be helpful for the council to continue to work with parents to address their concerns about secondary provision. 4. Summary HM Inspectors agree that the proposal has the potential to provide educational benefits. A new primary school should address the need for increased non-denominational primary places in Dargavel Village. Almost all stakeholders agree that there is a need for a new school. However, a significant number of stakeholders have concerns about the proposed location for the new school. They are concerned about children having access to adequate safe walking and cycling routes. They are also very worried about the potential impact of significantly increased traffic on an already congested road. Should the proposal be approved, it will be essential that the council ensure there are improved, adequate safe active routes to school. They also need to develop
Page 302
4 | Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 Renfrewshire Council © Crown Copyright robust and viable plans to efficiently manage the significant increase in traffic that is expected. Stakeholders are also concerned about the council’s timescale for the project. If the proposal is agreed, HM Inspectors recommend the council should ensure that there are clear contingency plans in place, should there be slippage in the projected timescales for the construction and opening of the new school for August 2027. If the proposal is agreed, HM Inspectors recommend strongly that the council continue to work with stakeholders to help mitigate their valid concerns and involve them, as appropriate, in the development of the new school. HM Inspectors April 2024