Learning Estate Strategy Update ECSPB March 2025 v0.9 FINAL
Renfrewshire Council · 13 March 2025
Back to Education and Children's Services Policy Board — 13 March 2025 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: 13 March 2025 __________________________________________________________________ Report by: Director of Children’s Services __________________________________________________________________ Heading: Learning Estate Strategy Update __________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1. Renfrewshire Council has committed to planning for its most ambitious and high value investment programme to improve the learning estate. The objectives, vision, and principles underpinning future decision making were outlined at and agreed by the August 2024 Education and Children’s Services Policy Board, and this report provides an update on the strategy development including proposals to progress the assessment of the next phase of delivery. 1.2. This Council is currently delivering on phase 1 of this strategy which includes the following major projects: • Paisley Grammar School Community Campus • Park Mains High School extension and alterations • New primary school in Dargavel • Thorn Primary School new build 1.3. At the August 2024 meeting, the Board agreed to adopt an objective prioritisation criteria and assessment methodology to support a structured review of the overall learning estate. Application of this methodology has now been completed from which a cohort of establishments have been identified as proposed priorities to progress to the next phase of the learning estate strategy process. This proposed cohort comprises of 10 primary schools and 4 secondary schools. 1.4. Members are reminded that the next stage in the strategic approach will be to consider in detail, establishments identified through this initial strategic prioritisation process. Those identified as priority establishments for consideration as part of the next stage, will be subject to the development of a detailed business case that will consider a broad range of factors including assessing the underlying reasons why each establishment is being flagged in
Page 2
the priority list. It should be noted that not all establishments identified for consideration through this process will necessarily require to be rebuilt and or replaced or undergo a major refurbishment and it will be dependent on the specific circumstances considered through the business case process. 1.5. The business case stage will seek to assess each building to consider its local geography, condition, suitability for delivering the curriculum and meet the needs of an evolving demographic, as well as future roll projections, deprivation data and the overall local learning estate. As part of the business case development process, consideration will also be given to wider opportunities any major learning estate investment would bring as part of strategic placeshaping and strategic property workstreams being concurrently progressed by the Council. 1.6. This report also provides an update on the delivery of a new Thorn Primary School, with a recommendation to widen the consideration of this project as an immediate priority to take into account implications of improved data and intelligence relating to the overall learning estate across Johnstone, as it is currently scoped and as it progresses through the process. __________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations Members of the Education and Children’s Services Policy Board are asked to: 2.1 Note that a proposed business case framework will be brought back to the next cycle of the Board for consideration and approval to underpin a standardised approach to be adopted as part of the Learning Estate Programme moving forward. 2.2 Note that a proposed business case development programme and indicative timeline will be brought back to the next Board for consideration and approval for the 14 priority schools identified in the report. 2.3 Note the strategic assumptions set out in section 7 that will support the future planning in relation to long term lifecycle maintenance arrangements. 2.4 Agree to an options appraisal to be undertaken for the wider Johnstone learning estate, by widening the scope of Thorn Primary School development. 3. Learning Estate Strategy 3.1. In August 2024, members agreed on a long-term strategy to “create the best possible learning estate to allow children and young people to thrive”. This strategy will support the Council to develop a structured long term decision- making approach to investment in the learning estate and set an ongoing programme of delivery to address all learning establishments. 3.2. This strategy will work towards delivering the ambition to ensure all establishments are fit for 21st century education, as well as utilising a place- based approach to provide core community facilities.
Page 3
3.3. At its August 2024 meeting, the Board agreed to adopt an objective prioritisation criteria and assessment methodology to support a structured review of the overall learning estate. A work programme has progressed this assessment process which utilised the agreed methodology for scoring which considers key data sets including condition, suitability, sufficiency, and quartile data for deprivation ratings. Using this methodology and considering the 8 key objectives outlined in the strategy, a proposal has been developed which identifies a cohort of priority for consideration as part of the next stage of the strategy process. 3.4. The full prioritisation matrix established through this assessment process should be viewed as a key and evolving dataset that will be subject to ongoing review recognising that learning estate data on which it is predominantly based will be subject to regular updates. This includes for example aspects such as condition where ongoing investment through traditional lifecycle maintenance programmes will positively impact the condition score of associated buildings. Similarly, the assessment of sufficiency is influenced by the capacity of a school where school rolls and registrations are inevitably subject to change each academic year and will be supported by ongoing long term roll projections to enable effective forward planning. Again, as the strategy moves forward over the long term and such data is subject to updating, this will feed through into updates to the prioritisation matrix. In contrast the suitability score for delivering the curriculum, is a metric that has traditionally remained static and is therefore expected to remain more consistent over time unless a school is subject to change through investment. 3.5. It is appropriate to remind the Board that this overall strategic approach is intended to assist in developing long term priorities for future investment in the learning estate based on a transparent and structured assessment process and a well-developed business case approach. Notwithstanding, the strategy approach acknowledges that there may be circumstances where school capacity by itself becomes an overriding consideration for a school to be identified for priority consideration. Such circumstances are expected to be identified through the long-term school roll projection exercise that is expected will provide early indication of schools where capacity is expected to be permanently exceeded over the long term. Irrespective of all other aspects assessed under the methodology, such circumstances would elevate such establishment(s) into a priority status for detailed consideration in order that the Council was able to develop options and subsequently clear plans to address the longer-term capacity pressures. 4. Scoring Methodology 4.1. Scoring for each establishment has been developed utilising published Core Facts data that is supplied to the Scottish Government. For condition, and suitability, buildings are traditionally assessed on an ABCD basis. This has been transposed to the following, where A (4) is best, with D (1) being the worst: A = 4 B = 3 C = 2
Page 4
D = 1 4.2. Whilst school capacities will largely be dealt with as a separate workstream to strategically plan, it is important to consider school capacities in the overall scoring methodology to identify schools that have either very high capacity, or very low capacity and how areas of concern can be considered and addressed through an evolving estate. Using strategic objective 3, as agreed as part of the learning estate strategy, which seeks to ensure that where appropriate, all learning establishments maintain a school roll of between 80- 95% of school capacity, the following scoring methodology has been applied where again, A (4) is best, and D (1) is worst: A = 4 (80-95%) B = 3 (50-79%) C = 2 (0-49%) D = 1 (>96%) 4.3. The above methodology allows schools that have capacity pressures of above 96% to be flagged as a key consideration as part of the scoring system. 4.4. For quartile scoring, which is an agreed method of socio-economic data that measures deprivation already uses a 1234 scoring method, where 4 is the least deprived, and 1 is the most deprived. 4.5. As outlined and agreed in the learning estate strategy, the following weightings would be applied to the scoring categories noted above, on the following basis: Condition 30% Suitability 40% Capacity 10% Quartile 20% 4.6. Using the combined scoring with weighting applied the prioritisation matrix will be produced with establishments that have a lower score being identified as of higher priority for further consideration. To provide context and an example of the scoring methodology, Paisley Grammar School scores have been provided below: Paisley Grammar School Category Core Facts Score Numerical Equivalent Weighted Calculation Condition 30% C 2 0.3 x 2 = 0.6 Suitability 40% C 2 0.4 x 2 = 0.8 Capacity 10% A 4 0.1 x 4 = 0.4 Quartile 20% 2 2 0.2 x 2 = 0.4 Total 2.2
Page 5
5. Prioritisation Matrix 5.1. When the above scoring methodology is applied by using the approved Core Facts data for the learning estate, the full prioritisation matrix is established, and this is included at Appendix 1 for reference. Focusing on the areas of highest priority for initial detailed consideration, the top 4 priority ranking of establishments covers 14 schools (circa 25% of the overall portfolio) encompassing 10 primary schools and 4 secondary schools as follows: Priority Ranking Property Score Establishment Condition Suitability Capacity Quartile 1 2.2 Paisley Grammar School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 2= 2.5 Auchenlodment Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 2= 2.5 Heriot Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 2= 2.5 Johnstone High School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 2= 2.5 St Peter's Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 3= 2.6 Bridge of Weir Primary School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 3= 2.6 Thorn Primary School 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.6 3= 2.6 West Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 3= 2.6 Castlehead High School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 3= 2.6 St Margaret's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 3= 2.6 Gallowhill Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 3= 2.6 Brediland Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.7 Trinity High School 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.6 4= 2.7 St Catherine's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.2 5.2. Paisley Grammar School is identified top of the list, which through the application of this new strategic approach provides support to the previous decision taken by the Council to rebuild this school. 5.3. Similarly, Thorn Primary School, again an existing committed investment project is also identified in the priority list. Although not assessed to the same priority as Paisley Grammar in the overall scoring, it is nevertheless identified within the priority cohort of schools, with lower suitability and capacity being the primary drivers in its overall lower relative scoring. However, in the context of this whole estate assessment process, proposed adjustments to progressing this project are outlined in section 5.10 onwards, in this report. 5.4. As referred to in section 3.5 above future school roll projections, and specifically schools roll projections that indicate a school capacity is projected to come under sustained pressure, provides an additional layer of consideration to be taken into account. The recently completed whole learning estate pupil projection exercise has identified Trinity High School as a key risk of sustained capacity pressure as previously reported to the Board. 5.5. The table outlined below reflects the projections for Trinity High School outlined as part of the Learning Estate Strategy – Roll Projections report presented to the Board in October 2023: Secondary School Capacity 2024-25 (F) 2025-26 (F) 2026-27 (F) 2027-28 (F) 2028-29 (F) 2029-30 (F) 2030-31 (F) 2031-32 (F) 2032-33 (F) 2033-34 (F) Trinity High School 1032 994 1026 1052 1070 1097 1110 1121 1154 1187 1204
Page 6
5.6. As outlined previously, the projection modelling indicates that the capacity pressure trend is not expected to be a short-term peak that otherwise could be managed by local interventions, but rather indicates a sustained level of pressure over the long term. On this basis, the scoring for Trinity High School capacity criteria has been realigned to reflect this longer-term risk profile, where capacity is expected to exceed 95% by next year and continue to rise over the 10-year projection period without any form of intervention. The risk of inadequate long-term capacity to meet school roll demand moves Trinity High School capacity score from the optimal range scoring a 4, to the category scoring a 1 which elevates the school up the prioritisation assessment as detailed in the table below: Priority Ranking Property Score Establishment Condition Suitability Capacity Quartile 1 2.2 Paisley Grammar School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 2 2.4 Trinity High School 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 3= 2.5 Auchenlodment Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 3= 2.5 Heriot Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 3= 2.5 Johnstone High School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 3= 2.5 St Peter's Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 4= 2.6 Bridge of Weir Primary School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 4= 2.6 Thorn Primary School 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.6 4= 2.6 West Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Castlehead High School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 St Margaret's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Gallowhill Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Brediland Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 5= 2.7 St Catherine's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.2 5.7. It is important to emphasise that the purpose of this stage of the strategic process has been to establish an assessment outcome that provides a cohort of schools that are identified as being priorities for progressing to the next stage of the strategic programme which encompasses a phased business case development process. A business case is a structured set of documents that outline the rationale for a proposed change or investment. It details the expected benefits, costs, risks, and opportunities with clear justification for why a recommendation is being made. This process will allow the Council to make informed decisions that are in line with the overall objectives of the Learning Estate Strategy. 5.8. The business case development stage represents a significant undertaking to support robust decision making and due diligence in relation to the scale and shape of project that will ultimately be progressed by the Council. In broad terms, this will be conducted in four sub-stages that will ultimately lead to a final delivery case that will underpin projects moving into physical delivery. It is important to recognise that as part of this business case development, an establishment will not be looked at in isolation, and this process will consider many factors including assessing other establishments in the vicinity that could also be incorporate into a project alongside a priority establishment, should there be a business and education justification for doing so. This means that the priority list shown in appendix 1 may be subject to change beyond the core facts of an establishment outlined in section 4 of this document, and could be amended through justification outlined in future business case development.
Page 7
5.9. The key stages of developing the business case for school projects will encompass: - • Strategic Case for Change (SCC) – this initial stage will very much establish the strategic case for change and scope for the business case to consider. • Outline Business Case (OBC) – the OBC stage will begin to develop the business case in line with national green book treasury guidance, including the initial development and appraisal of potential options to meet the identified strategic need and will be informed by initial community engagement in line with best practice and the recently approved consultation and engagement policy. • Full Business Case (FBC) – the FBC enhances and progresses the completeness of all aspects of the business case including assessing and identifying the preferred option that would progress to formal engagement and consultation including where appropriate statutory consultation processes. • Final Deliver Case (FDC) – the FDC would be informed by the consultation on the FBC and would set out the final agreed business case for the project to be progressed and at this stage would represent a formal commitment and approval of financial resources by the Council and would trigger the project to move into the delivery phase. 5.10. In order to support this business case stage, there are two key requirements that need to be progressed over the coming months before this staged process commences: - 1. Development of a detailed business case framework setting out the standardised approach to be adopted for developing and assessing business cases as part of the Learning Estate Programme, reflecting best practice and national guidance for major infrastructure investment decisions. 2. Taking account of the scale and range of schools identified in the prioritisation list above and the resource capacity of the Council to concurrently develop the programme, there is a need to develop proposals for board approval that outline a structured deliverable programme to support all 14 schools through the business case development process. As part of this process the proposals may make recommendation to batch several schools within a single business case process where circumstances would support such an approach. The work completed to date has highlighted an obvious consideration in this regard linked to the existing Thorn Primary project. As outlined in the sections below it is recommended that the scope of this project should be expanded and considered through a wider business case development process. 5.11. Following an unsuccessful funding bid to replace Thorn Primary School through the Scottish Government/Scottish Futures Trust Learning Estate Investment Programme, the Council agreed to earmark £14 million to support a project to develop a new build Thorn Primary School.
Page 8
5.12. This project was framed on constructing a like for like single stream primary school on the same site as the current school. Over the previous 12 months, progress has been achieved across key workstreams supporting the learning estate strategy. This has provided more robust information, data and intelligence that strongly indicate a need to adopt a wider scope beyond Thorn Primary School in isolation. 5.13. Firstly, in relation to the prioritisation matrix outlined above, 4 of the 14 schools recommended for priority consideration are within the Johnstone area indicating a strong geographical concentration of priority schools. 5.14. Secondly, in relation to the whole estate school roll projections, it is forecast that all schools across the Johnstone area are expected to reduce over the 10-year projection period with some schools projected to reduce significantly, resulting in an over provision of existing capacity aligned to expected demand. As summarised in the table below, on the projected trajectory, the school estate in Johnstone will be operating in the region of 57% of its overall capacity in 10 years and on an individual school basis that percentage is forecast to be as low as 37%. 5.15. In addition to the prioritisation matrix focus on Johnstone, the school projection data indicates a strong geographical concentration of over- provision of school places that is expected to become more pronounced over the medium to long term, with no schools projected to be operating at the agreed target capacity of 80-95% in 10 years. Specifically in relation to Thorn Primary the projection data indicates a single stream ‘like for like’ school would be forecast to be operating at more than half its capacity by 2034. School Capacity 2024 Roll 2034 Roll Thorn Primary School 242 136 (56%) 117 (48%) Auchenlodment Primary School 302 210 (69%) 157 (57%) St Margaret’s Primary School 272 173 (63%) 136 (50%) St David’s Primary School 184 88 (48%) 89 (48%) Cochrane Castle Primary School 242 113 (46%) 90 (37%) Fordbank Primary School 327 263 (80%) 219 (66%) St Anthony’s Primary School 302 274 (90%) 221 (73%) Johnstone High School 1380 872 (63%) 849 (61%) TOTALS 3251 2,129 (67%) 1,878 (57%) 5.16. In the context of this new information, data, and intelligence, it would be sensible at this stage to consider the greater gain that can be delivered by assessing the Thorn Primary Project in line with the previously agreed Learning Estate Strategy objectives and by carefully considering the wider Johnstone Learning Estate in a set of options to understand the extent and feasibility of a wider scope to the project. Whilst this data recognises the need for a wider scope, Thorn Primary School will still be taken forward and in addition and as a result of this strategy, with greater benefit to the wider Johnstone community. As such, it should be recognised that time will be required to consider all options. 5.17. It is therefore recommended that as part of this next stage of work to develop a structured deliverable programme to support all 14 schools through business case development process, this specifically considers as a priority, a
Page 9
proposed wider scope project for the Johnstone learning estate, including the existing Thorn Primary project. The objective of a wider scope exercise will be to examine options that would maximise the opportunity to support the long- term objectives of expanding the number of pupils being educated in A-rated condition buildings, while making the most efficient use of available budgets and existing capacity. 6. Lifecycle Maintenance 6.1. Alongside the ongoing assessment of schools that will require to be rebuilt or undergo major refurbishment, is the need to develop a strategic and targeted lifecycle maintenance strategy. The Council currently operates a wind and watertight policy in relation to building maintenance, and whilst effort is being made to maximise this and stretch beyond where possible, a revised approach will be required to maintain and improve the learning estate in line with the principles of the wider learning estate strategy. 6.2. With maintenance being led by the Head of Facilities and Property Services, a tailored plan will be developed over the coming year to identify how the learning estate can be supported in an appropriate manner through lifecycle maintenance by considering the following principles, which have been applied to each school in appendix 1: 6.3. Category 1 – the priority cohort The establishments identified in this report as priorities will move to the next stage of the process and be subject to a detailed business case approach, should members agree to the contents of this report. This means that these buildings could be subject to substantial change and intervention, albeit this will still take a significant period of time to deliver in full. On this basis, lifecycle maintenance should focus on maintaining the building at an acceptable standard for a short to medium term lifespan. 6.4. Category 2 – the middle cohort Establishments in the middle cohort will still be subject to similar business development process and potential intervention, but it must be recognised that this will be developed in phases over the next 10-20 years. These establishments must therefore be subject to a greater degree of lifecycle maintenance planning and investment with an assumed longer lifespan of building than the priority cohort. 6.5. Category 3 – the long-term cohort This cohort of establishment will focus on the newest built schools and the PPP estate where buildings are expected to have a long service life wbeyond the 25 years of this strategy. The assumption for these schools will be to develop a plan that considers long-term lifecycle maintenance programmes to maintain condition and, where required, net zero transition investment. Additionally, it should be recognised that whilst establishments in categories 1 and 2 are addressed via major intervention, these will then fall into category 3, which shows the evolving nature of this list.
Page 10
7. Finance Plan 7.1. The learning estate strategy agreed by the Board in August 2024 also outlined that the strategy would need to be underpinned by a long term funding model which would outline a proposed strategic funding approach, affordability considerations in the context of the Council’s overall medium and longer term financial sustainability, and the scale and timing over which investment capacity could be generated and deployed. 7.2. Work to develop this model is continuing and is reflective of the complexity of the funding arrangements and consideration not just of capital investment and associated borrowing requirements, but also factoring in existing and planned lifecycle maintenance requirements. The potential phasing of these is also important to understand in terms of both medium and long term capital plans and the impact on overall levels of debt which the council could consider – always recognising that there will be a limit within which total debt levels require to be managed. There is currently no visibility of any Scottish Government funding for schools capital investment beyond the existing LEIP programme, however should funding become available then this will also require to be factored in to the model. 7.3. At the Council meeting on 27 February 2025, Council agreed to make an initial provision of £2.5m to support borrowing which would be utilised to invest in the learning estate, with similar levels of revenue resource being committed to each year over the remainder of the current Administration. This cumulative commitment will generate borrowing capacity and rolled up revenue resource of up to £170m which is comparable to the total funding being deployed over the current phase of schools capital investment. Members should recognise that successive phases of delivery against the strategy will require similar levels of revenue resource to be committed to. 7.4. The overall funding model will continue to be developed in the coming months, as will the financial framework and analysis necessary to underpin the business case process outlined above. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of this report 1. Financial Council has agreed to make provision of £2.5m of revenue resource in 2025/26, with similar amounts being committed to on an annual basis each year over the remaining years of the current Administration. The financial model underpinning the strategy continues to be developed, along with the framework and analysis required in the business case process. 2. HR and Organisational Development None. 3. Community/Council Planning
Page 11
Our Renfrewshire is thriving - New, and improved, learning estate assets will allow our children and young people to thrive with the best possible infrastructure to support their school experience. Staff, and community users will benefit from modern and inclusive environments. Reshaping our place, our economy and our future - The learning estate shall be appropriately scaled and equipped to meet curriculum expectations and deliver an appropriate learning and teaching experience for all. 4. Legal None. 5. Property/Assets These projects will deliver significant improvements to the learning estate, extending the life of assets, and improving the experience of young people, staff, and the wider community. 6. Information Technology Digital improvements will be delivered through the learning estate strategy, where access to technology for all, will be a key priority for projects. 7. Equality and Human Rights The Recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. If required following implementation, the actual impact of the recommendations and the mitigating actions will be reviewed and monitored, and the results of the assessment will be published on the Council’s website. 8. Health and Safety None. 9. Procurement Any procurement work required will be conducted in collaboration with the Council’s Procurement team and adhere to appropriate regulations. 10. Risk All projects are bound by rigorous governance and supported by detailed risk registers. Risk is reported and managed at various levels with scrutiny applied to ensure mitigations and contingency plans are in place. 11. Privacy Impact None.
Page 12
12. Climate Risk New, and improved, learning estate assets will directly contribute to the Council’s journey towards net zero. Sustainability is a key concept of all projects. 13. Children’s Rights When considering any future school provision, the impact this will have on children is a key consideration, and any work will be based around the direct needs of children to allow their education experience to thrive. Whilst children have a right to choose where they wish to attend school in collaboration with their parents, the council’s admissions policy applies to ensure that schools that are oversubscribed can be managed. 14. Cosla Policy Position None. Children’s Services JL/GM/JO 21/02/205 Author: Jack Lochans jack.lochans@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 13
Appendix 1 – Full Prioritisation List Key: Column A – Priority Ranking Priority ranking is derived directly from the property score for all 63 schools in Renfrewshire. Column B – Property Score The property score is a calculation of the 4 core metrics • Condition • Suitability • Capacity • Quartile Column C - Delivery Cohort Priority Category 1 These establishments will move to the next stage of the process and be subject to the detailed business case approach as a priority. Medium Category 2 Will progress to the next stage of the process and be subject to the same detailed business case approach over the next 10-20 years. Long Term Category 3 Buildings with lifespans well over the 25 years of this strategy and focus will move to long term lifecycle maintenance and sustainability transition.
Page 14
Column A Column B Column C Priority Ranking Property Score Delivery Cohort Properties Condition Suitability Capacity Quartile Comment 1 2.2 Priority Paisley Grammar School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.4 2 2.4 Priority Trinity High School 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.6 3= 2.5 Priority Auchenlodment Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 3= 2.5 Priority Heriot Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 3= 2.5 Priority Johnstone High School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 3= 2.5 Priority St Peter's Primary School 0.6 1.2 0.3 0.4 4= 2.6 Priority Bridge of Weir Primary School 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 4= 2.6 Priority Thorn Primary School 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.6 4= 2.6 Priority West Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Priority Castlehead High School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Priority St Margaret's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Priority Gallowhill Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 4= 2.6 Priority Brediland Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.2 5 2.7 Priority St Catherine's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.2 6= 2.8 Long term* St James' Primary School - Paisley 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 Significant recent refurbishment. Maintenance programme to be targeted. 6= 2.8 Middle Langcraigs Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 6= 2.8 Middle Mary Russell School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 6= 2.8 Middle Williamsburgh Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 6= 2.8 Middle Kirklandneuk Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 6= 2.8 Middle Our Lady of Peace Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.4 6= 2.8 Long term* Woodlands Primary School 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.2 PPP School, low quartile & low capacity driving up the list. 7= 2.9 Middle St Charles' Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.4 7= 2.9 Middle St Mary's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.4 7= 2.9 Long term* St Andrew's Academy 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.4 PPP School, high capacity driving up the list. 7= 2.9 Middle Rashielea Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.2 0.6 8= 3 Middle Gryffe High School 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.8 8= 3 Long term* Riverbrae School 0.9 1.6 0.1 0.4 Newer school, high capacity driving up the list.
Page 15
8= 3 Middle Lochfield Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 8= 3 Middle Lochwinnoch Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 8= 3 Middle Bushes Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 8= 3 Middle Kilbarchan Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 8= 3 Long term* St Fergus' Primary School 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.2 Newer school, low quartile & high capacity driving up the list. 8= 3 Middle East Fulton Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 8= 3 Middle Renfrew High School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.6 9= 3.1 Middle Newmains Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 9= 3.1 Long term* St James' Primary School - Renfrew 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 Newer school, maintenance programme to be targeted. 9= 3.1 Middle Arkleston Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 9= 3.1 Middle Wallace Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 9= 3.1 Middle St John Ogilvie Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 10= 3.2 Long term* Mossvale Primary School 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.4 Significant recent refurbishment. Maintenance programme to be targeted. 10= 3.2 Long term* St David's Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 Newer school, low quartile & low capacity driving up the list. 10= 3.2 Middle Inchinnan Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Long term* Cochrane Castle Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.2 0.2 Newer school, low quartile & low capacity driving up the list. 10= 3.2 Middle St Anne's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Middle Howwood Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Long term* St Anthony's Primary School 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.4 Significant recent refurbishment. Maintenance programme to be targeted. 10= 3.2 Middle Barsail Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Middle Langbank Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Middle Bishopton Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 10= 3.2 Middle St Fillan's Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.3 0.8 11= 3.3 Middle Glencoats Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.3 0.2 11= 3.3 Long term St Paul's Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.3 0.2 11= 3.3 Long term Linwood High School 1.2 1.6 0.3 0.2 11= 3.3 Middle Ralston Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.8
Page 16
11= 3.3 Long term Houston Primary School 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.8 11= 3.3 Long term Glennifer High School 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.6 12 3.4 Long term St Benedict's High School 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.2 13 3.5 Long term Fordbank Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.3 0.4 14= 3.6 Long term Park Mains High School 0.9 1.6 0.3 0.8 14= 3.6 Long term Bargarran Primary School 1.2 1.2 0.4 0.8 15 3.8 Long term Todholm Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.6 16= 4 Long term St John Bosco Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.8 16= 4 Long term Dargavel Primary School 1.2 1.6 0.4 0.8