Hidden £65m PPP Schools bill

Surprise, Surprise...

Ministers claim they have inherited a hidden £65m liability for privately-financed school projects that the previous Labour-LibDem administration failed to budget for in full.

...by 2010-11 will be £165m as the true cost of the exponential rise in the value contracts has become clear.

These were only £17m last year but leapt to £48m this year before reaching £137m next year and a total of £165m by the final year of this parliament, all for projects that have already been built, are under construction, or have been approved.

More from The Herald

Never mind, just think of the money the council will get from selling the Bishopbriggs High School site plus the 'surplus' land at Thomas Muir and Turnbull.

PPP deals cost Scots £22bn

Scots will have to pay a "phenomenal" £22.3bn over the next four decades to fund all the Public Private Partnership projects across the country - around £4500 for every Scot.

New figures released by the Scottish Executive have revealed the true cost of the 102 contracts for the privately built schools, prisons and hospitals which, in some cases, will be privately run.

The PPP statistics highlight the legacy of taxpayer debt the new SNP executive has inherited from the previous administration.

Professor Allyson Pollock, head of the Centre for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh University, said: "This is a phenomenal amount of debt being incurred and stored up, not only for this generation but for future generations too. Others have noted the ways in which we are mortgaging our children's futures.



"The high costs of PFI squeezes expenditure on public services spending. In health, there is very good research evidence of the ways in which PFI drains money from public services and as a result services are cut and closed to pay the PFI charges and profits of the banks and shareholders."

A spokesman for the Scottish Labour Party said: "When you break it down it is good value for money."

From The herald

LibDem take a beating...

The LibDems, who voted for the 'cheaper option', for Bishopbriggs Academy have been wiped off the face of the new council at East Dunbartonshire.

They could ignore the public when it came to consultation but they couldn't when it came to voting for their job.

East Dunbartonshire Liberal Democrates on May 4th 2007

John Morrison (Council Leader) - Gone
Margaret McNaughton - Gone
Gordon Macdonald - Gone
Fiona Risk - Gone
Pat Steel (provost) - Gone
Julia Southcott - Gone
Robert Duncan - Gone
Fiona Callison - Gone
Cathy McInnes - Gone
Eric Gotts - Survived
Duncan Cummings - Survived
Vaughan Moody - Survived

Of the Twelve LibDem councillors only three survived the rest were wiped out by the voters.

Cathy McInnes who came fifth out of six candidates for the Strathkelvin and Bearsden seat took a double beating.

The results can be found here Strathkelvin and Bearsden


And the council results here

Jo Swinson - take note

Kirky Herald Lib Dems Binned

Bats at St Ninian's

I understand that St Ninian's cannot be demolished as bats have been found.

Will this delay the Academy - only time will tell....

Schools project to be sold off?

Schools contracts may be up for grabs in Amec sell-off.

It could be the first of many sell off by chief executive Samir Brikho, the Swedish-Lebanese businessman who runs the company.

Samir may sell businesses involved in building and facilities services and focus the company on core areas such as oil and gas, minerals and metals mining and the nuclear and wind energy industries.

He added that plans were already in place for significant cost savings.

Read the full story here in The Sunday Herald

Maybe they think the SNP will win in May...

Comment from and old pupil

Just found your blog and it's amazing.

I lived in the briggs and went to the High school and found the information here totally awesome!

Why are the parents letting this happen?

The new head and the council are like pals and the school move is a lib dem doing!

If Mr Waddell was in charge then this would not happen - maybe that's why the dumped him!

None are so blind as those that cannot see - selling off land and placing the school on the only land that was left as they use the old Thomas Muir for St Ninian's - are you people stupid?

The council then grant planning with loads of condition! Try to get an extension with one thing wrong and see the difference.

As for the school Board - were they appointed by the council? Looks like it to me. The co-chair works for them - how bad is that?

Great blog keep it up. I now live in the US but love my roots.

I cannot believe how stupid the people of Bishopbriggs are to let this happen under their noses.

Thanks James and power to your elbow.

SportScotland publish guidelines

SportScotland has published a guide to sports provision in Scotland's Schools.

They are concerned at the loss of so many pitches particularly with PPP projects.

The Bishopbriggs Academy DOES NOT meet their recommendations for sports pitch provision.

Here is the Herald story

And how the Scotsman covered it

SportScotland guide lines

Janitor's houses

If you have read other posts on this site you would remember the council saying that the janitor's house on the Bishopbriggs High School site restricted their building plot. There was no money available to purchase it.

Same with the child care centre on the same site.

© Google Earth

Several months on we're expected to forget that, as they decide a valuable strip of land at Thomas Muir is 'surplus' and should be sold off for housing.

© Google Earth


Wait a minute, doesn't that land include a Janitor's house, they don't own, and a bus terminus?

Surly they can't find money to buy them out when they had none for the same purpose at the Bishopbriggs High site?

Not content with gaining the entire site at Bishopbriggs High they want to claw back land from Turnbull and Thomas Muir.

The will be building the biggest school ever in Bishopbriggs on what remains of the Thomas Muir site. This will require having to share sports facilities with surrounding primaries.

Plans lodged for Bishopbriggs town centre

The developers have lodged plans for the area including the old Bishopbriggs High School, Triangle Centre, St. Matthew's Church and Bishopbriggs Library (the old school).

If you're looking for it online here's a hint...
You won't find under 'Applications of Particular Interest' - wonder why?

The plans are TP/ED/06/1320 you cannot view them online as I write this.

Let's hope it's more successful that Churchill Way (now demolished) or Cross Court (empty units). With a number of outlets lying empty already in Bishopbriggs is their a great need for another shopping centre? We only have to look as far as Kirkintilloch to see what has happen to their centre!

The developers now have the entire Bishopbriggs High School site and land they decided was 'surplus' on both the Thomas Muir site, where the new school will have to share sports facilities with adjacent primaries.

Quote from Council 'Consulative Document' - The Thomas Muir site...
"They consider that this in turn will offer the Council improved educational facilities in the new school, particularly playing fields.

Having survived the bombings during the Second World War it took a single council meeting on 26th June to close the school.

Slowly, slowly...

I see that after last week's meeting at Bishopbriggs Academy where I pointed out the school has had a web site since August.

The web site has been updated to include the 'Interim' board members. No longer just Kenneth Low as parent member of the, non existent, Bishopbriggs Academy board (see post below).

No contact details or minutes have been updated....

Unfortunately the council web site, list of schools, doesn't include Bishopbriggs Academy.

This screen capture (below) was taken on 18th December as shown on the top left.

Slowly, slowly....

Click for larger image

The Secondary 5 and 6 modern studies homework links need updating - they expired on 15/10/2006.

More soon...

Summary of first Academy meeting with the Parent Forum

For all those unable to attend last night's meeting.

The low turnout could have been due to the very short notice period, bad weather, middle of the Christmas season or a number of other reasons.

The meeting started with a motion on the legality of the boards position to negotiate with the council. This was noted and the meeting continued.

In the first public meeting in the five months since the amalgamation Ken Low went over the plans for the new Academy. The same plans that have, and are, available at the council offices, online and displayed at the school last month.

The original 14 days time scale to lodge objects, which has gone, is now available again due to the traffic assessment being lodged this week with planning. This plan is available to view at the council offices. As far as I am aware nobody, at the meeting, had seen this traffic plan.

The position of the school, on the site, was questioned and it was asked if this had been a compromise as the old Thomas Muir School had to remain for the pupils of a Kirkintilloch School. It was noted that to achieve the time scale the developers plan required this situation.

Access to the school was debated and parents were not happy with the present plan. This may have been addressed in the 'unseen' traffic plan.

To counter suggestions about the 'surplus land' the council have suggested that another 'shared' outdoor sports facility with St Helens (across Wester Cleddens Road) be considered. This would give the school TWO 'shared' facilities with neighbouring primary schools. The first being the pitch the council now count as part of the Thomas Muir site, the Woodhill Primary pitch.

On the internal layout of the school the width of corridors was raised. It was suggested that a 'one way' system may have to be implemented for pupils to move around the school.

These discussions took up the bulk of the meeting, which last over two and a half hours, during which time several people left. This left little time for discussion on why the Board had not held election for a new Academy board five months ago as laid out in the legislation.

One member of the School Forum questioned the lack of information given to parent by the board since the amalgamation, a requirement under the School Board Scotland Act. Ken responded that the board considered that this information should come from the head teacher. More information has been available on this site than has come for the School Board or Council.

I suggested they use the, councils, Bishopbriggs Academy web space. It has been available since August, to keep parents informed, nobody was aware it existed. At the time of the meeting it shows Ken Low as a parent member of the Bishopbriggs Academy board (see screen shot below). This position is an elected office, I don't remember the election - do you?

Eventually a vote was held, and the motion (below) carried, by the majority of parents in attendance, this requires the council to hold elections for a new Bishopbriggs Academy Board, with immediate effect.

The meeting then closed.

If anyone has anything to add please use the comment option below.

Access the school plans on the Internet

View the Planning documents relating to the new Bishopbriggs Academy here...

Use this link then select 'Applications of Particular Interest' (at the bottom) - Again the bottom link - 'TP/ED/1199 - Bishopbriggs Academy (Thomas Muir Site)' to see the plans.

You may want to check the 'Good Neighbour Agreement'

You cannot link directly to this page!

If after reviewing the above documents, you require help or want to object. (Since the Council advert in the Herald did NOT include any address for objection)

Contact :

Planning, Development & Property Assets
The Triangle
Kirkintilloch Road
Bishopbriggs
G64 2TR

Tel: 0141 578 8600

E-mail: Partnership and Planning

You can use this link to the Woodhill Residents site - where you will find a link to their 'draft letter of objection'.

Better = Smaller?

It would appear that the solution, on better 'educational' grounds, that the developers used to persuade the council that they could built a 'better' school at Thomas Muir involved the advantage of the Thomas Muir site being larger than the High school site.

They're building a school to accomodate more pupils than the exisiting Thomas Muir school on that site.
The school they are building is actually TWO schools combined. it will accommodate 1,200 pupils plus staff In school roll terms this will make it the largest school ever in Bishopbriggs

But...

The developers are going to build it on a smaller plot of land than the existing school occupies!

Bigger school on a smaller plot of land = land to sell for other development = profit


I wonder if the interim school board will still say they agreed to this now that they know the actual facts?

How the council voted with the developers...

I have produced this map clearly showing the divide in East Dunbarton Council over the location of the Academy.

All the Liberal Democrat councillors, mainly from outside Bishopbriggs, voted against the amendment to allow the school to be built on the previously preferred site at Bishopbriggs High.

Bishopbriggs High site

What do the council, and developers, have planned for the 'prime' town centre Bishopbriggs High site?

Will you have a say?

Will the council listen?

Will the £1.2million games hall survive or be demolished?

Will the existing empty shops be filled before more are built?

Who will benefit from their decision?

John Morrison (council leader) has already confirmed that they have started planning the redevelopment and various ideas are in the pipeline.

They include:

Commercial premises
Public space
Retail development
Housing opportunities
Community facilities (sports hall?)
Parking

Any retail or commercial development would have to include public space and parking. Housing opportunities doesn't sound that promising to me.
Community facilities, retention of the Sports Hall? The council would only say "it is being considered".

They say their are "opportunities" to work closely with

Local people
Traders
Community groups
and their
Partners (the Developers?)

Another 'consultation' process... we all know what that could mean.

Consultation... Consultation... Consultation...

BBC Radio 4 are broadcasting a programme on 'why there is so much consultation done nowadays'....

... and why most of the opinions are ignored.

They suggest it's used to play 'lip service' to the public appearing to having a say in decisions that really they have NO say in at all.

Now, why does that remind me of the EDC and the High School?

Minutes of the council meeting in July...

Still not on the web site, I requested them from the legal department..

They have been emailed to me and I note the following.

I cannot find any reference to the 'educational advantages' of the Thomas Muir site anywhere in the document.

The presentation by the three external advisors considered the following...

"key requirements of the process; legal evaluation; financial evaluation; and design and technical overview"

... no mention of educational advantages.

The recommendations to the council for approval considered the following...

To approve that Bidder 1 should be selected as the preferred bidder for the PPP Project (subject to the Scottish Executive’s KSR 2 approval) on the basis of their bid for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of the six schools in the Project with the exception of the cleaning service in the schools

... no mention of educational advantages.

At the beginning of the meeting councillor Hannah requested that the Provost refrain from using her casting vote, the Provost declined the request.

Councillor Hannah asked that the section regarding the building of Bishopbriggs Academy on the Thomas Muir site, recommended by Bidder 1 should be change to read on the Bishopbriggs High site.

On a split vote 12 to 12 the provost used her casting vote to reject his amendment.

The councillors that voted for the amendments (including building on Bishopbriggs High site, as voted for by the public and Jo Swinson) were...

Councillors FOR the amendment

1 Alan Brown - Cadder and Langbrae - Conservative
2 John Dempsey - Campsie - Labour
3 Rhondda Geekie - Kirkintilloch Central - Labour
4 Alex Hannah - Woodhill East - Labour
5 Billy Hendry - Balmuildy and Park - Conservative
6 Anne Jarvis - South Lenzie - Conservative
7 Charles Kennedy - Milton - Independent Alliance
8 Edward McGaughrin - Hillhead and Broomhill - Labour
9 Alan Moir - East Harestanes and Twechar - Labour
10Michael O’Donnell - Auchinairn and Woodhill - Labour
11Tom Smith - Woodhill West - Labour
12 Jack Young - Rosebank and Waterside - Independent Alliance

Councillors AGAINST the amendment

1 Fiona Callison - Chapelton - Liberal Democrat
2 Duncan Cumming - Barloch - Liberal Democrat
3 Robert Duncan - Castlehill and Thorn - Liberal Democrat
4 Eric Gotts - Clober - Liberal Democrat
5 Gordon Macdonald - Lenzie - Liberal Democrat
6 Cathy McInnes - West Kirkintilloch and Torrance - Liberal Democrat
7 Margaret McNaughton - Kenmure and Baldernock - Liberal Democrat
8 Vaughan Moody - Westerton - Liberal Democrat
9 John Morrison - Kessington - Liberal Democrat
10 Fiona Risk - Keystone - Liberal Democrat
11 Julia Southcott - Bearsden - Liberal Democrat

Casting and deciding vote...

12 Provost Patricia Steel - Baljaffery and Mosshead - Liberal Democrat

ALL the Liberal Democrats voted AGAINST the amendment and used their casting vote to push through the decision.

The wording in the minute contains an observation about her previous employment in education - I find this strange within the minute of a meeting, it can only have been include for one reason...

"The Provost, having listened to the debate and using her 32 years teaching experience used her casting vote in favour of the motion, which was accordingly declared to be carried.

After 32 years teaching you would think that she would had learned something - it was the people that voted her party into office.
They were asked their decision on the location of the school and then ignored - the people cannot, and will not, be ignored next election.

Hopefully soon you can read the minutes online - please read them.

Council minutes

Tried to access the East Dunbartonshire council minutes - only to see this...



I'll keep try...

Costs rise - date slips...

The building hasn't started yet!

£100million becomes £125million

Completion date now mid- 2009

Amec appointed preferred bidder for £125m East Dunbartonshire PPP schools project

The Amec-led InspirED consortium has been appointed preferred bidder by East Dunbartonshire Council for its £125m PPP schools project, as tipped by Contract Journal (9 August).

The consortium, which also includes John Laing and Innisfree, will deliver six new secondary schools and provide estate management services for 30 years.

Financial close is targeted for December 2006, with construction work beginning immediately afterwards. Completion is expected in mid-2009.

More from Contract Journal.

Parent consultation and the High School Board

Below is a letter I received from a past member of the Bishopbriggs High School Board that clears up any criticism about parent consultation. You will read that right up until the council meeting the board believed that the new school would be built on the High School site and that parents had agreed to this. It was the council who went against this selection...

Dear James

I have been looking at your web site and felt that I should respond to the comments of your anonymous contributor about the School Board. While I would accept that the Board might have done some things differently, I feel that the following points are valid:-

(1) as you know, when the proposal to build a new school was first mooted the unanimous view of the Bishopbriggs High School Board was that it should be built on the High School site. The Board did not consider that it was necessary to consult parents at that time since the Council was committed to a wideranging consultation which included parents of pupils attending the High School. The result of this consultation confirmed that the Board's decision reflected the parents' views.

(2) the Board's view did not change but, as you know, the Board ceased meeting as a separate entity following the establishment of the Interim Board and before the Council indicated that the builders had submitted proposals to build at the Thomas Muir site.

(3) as a result of the builders' proposals the Council told the Interim Board that it was required to undertake a further consultation. At that time I stated that I could see little point in a further consultation when the Council was unable to provide any information on the perceived educational advantages of the Thomas Muir site and I certainly would not have considered that there would have been any point in the Interim Board consulting with parents at that time.

(4) my recollection of the position taken by the Interim Board at that time was that if it could be shown that a school built on the Thomas Muir site would provide a better learning and teaching environment than one built on the High School site then that would be their preferred option. However the Interim Board members did not have the detailed information to enable them to reach a final decision and, accordingly, I think it was inappropriate for Councils members or officials to claim in early July that the Interim Board supported their decision.

(5) clearly, like yourself, I have no information on what discussions took place at the meeting of the Interim Board held after the Council made its decision and following receipt of detailed information on the perceived educational advantages of the Thomas Muir site but, I assume that, if they are supporting the Council's decision, they have confirmed with the head teacher and the staff members that a school at the Thomas Muir site will provide the better learning and teaching environment.

I would also like to make the following more general points:-

(1) while the Bishopbriggs High School Board did not consult with parents on the site of the new school, the Board did consult with parents on whether, in the event that the new school was to be built on the High School site, they would want their children to continue to be taught in the High School or decanted elsewhere. From approximately 1000 letters issued only around 200 replies were received.

(2) all parents of pupils attending Bishopbriggs High School in August 2005, between 1500 and 1700 I would guess, had the opportunity to stand for election to the School Board in November 2005 when 3 vacancies for parent members had to be filled. In the event only 3 nominations were received. In these circumstances I think that it is unfair that those who were prepared to serve on the Board and support the School should be subjected to criticism.

I agree with every point and would like to personally thank the contributor for this letter.