SNP will build new schools but not for profit!

The SNP have said they are committed to building new schools in East Dunbartonshire but not under PPP.

The SNP would use a NOT for profit trust scheme, where benefits are ploughed back into education rather that being paid out to contractors.

Where as the Liberal Democrats are committed to selling land and paying developers to run the schools for years to come.

PPP has already been in the news when running costs have soared in several projects.

The Labour party had said the SNP would not built the schools but this has been denied by SNP candidate Dr Robin Easton.

Council leader John Morrison said it was insulting to the public to say that PPP was anything but a success...

That would be the same public who's advice the Liberal Democrats chose to ignore then Mr Morrison?

Executive to decide on planning application

Holyrood will have final say on school plan Evening Times

MINISTERS are to rule on a controversial plan to build houses next to a new school.

A planning application by housing firm Amec for houses next to Bishopbriggs Academy has been referred to the Scottish Executive.

Bishopbriggs High and Thomas Muir High are merging as part of a £100million PPP plan to build six secondaries in East Dunbartonshire.

Bishopbriggs Academy will be built on the site of the former Thomas Muir High school in Wester Cleddens Road, Woodhill.

But campaigners have voiced concerns over the loss of green space adjoining the site which, they say, should be for sports facilities instead of housing.

However, East Dunbartonshire council leader John Morrison said: "The new Bishopbriggs Academy will have better sports facilities than ever before."

Nice one John - there never has been a Bishopbriggs Academy so how can it "have better sports facilities than ever before?"

No matter how you 'spin it' the land, that is already used for schools, would be better continuing to be used for the new school. But then that wouldn't make MONEY - would it!

Let's see how the figures add up when this PPP project is over.

Time to do to the Liberal Democrats what they have done to Bishopbriggs High School and the children of Bishopbriggs

Site available as a Widget...

This site can now be downloaded as a Widget...

Keep up-to-date direct on your desktop, customise the look and information.

This free widget is available from Widgetbox

The number of viewers continue to rise and other sites have started to link here - thanks to everyone for their support.

Bus giant supports parents in school row

BUS giant First has joined forces with a group of parents fighting a decision to sell off school land as part of a closure plan.

Councillors have given the go-ahead to a controversial site for the new Bishopbriggs Academy on the outskirts of the town, despite huge concerns raised by parents.

© Newsquest 2007

The new school is to go on the site of the former Thomas Muir High School in Wester Cleddens Road, Woodhill.

But campaigners say some children will be forced to walk too far to get to the new school.

More from Evening Times

Write to your councillor or MSP

You can use this site to write to your councillors or MSPs regarding this issue (or anything else that concerns them)

Use this link - Write to them

School PPP scheme a ‘catastrophe’ for pupils

Leading architect Malcolm Fraser has resigned from a Scottish Executive advisory panel over concerns that schools built using private finance could be damaging children.

Read the article here in the Sunday Herald

Bats are more important than your childrens safety

If bats are found on or around the site of the new Bishopbriggs Academy then developers CANNOT proceed until their future has been addressed.

Yet - a travel plan, that the council admit, does NOT meet requirements is NOT a matter that they decided could delay the new school.

Council leader, John Morrison, admitted that he had not, in his long history of sitting on the planning board, seen a submission that had so many conditions attached due to the inadequacies of the original plans.

Yet - he was happy to approve it!

It will now go to for approval to the Scottish Executive, objectors can put their case to them to reject this 'flawed' submission - last night approved by the Liberal Democrat run East Dunbartonshire Council.

Compromise - Bishopbriggs Academy and the PPP

The Academy was moved from it's intended site in the town centre on the promise of a better school not restricted by the site problems at the High School site.
Better sports provision and an improved design.
All the pupils would be moved to the High School and the site at Thomas Muir cleared with a new super school built.
No, site restrictions at Thomas Muir!

Lots of prime land at the High School site - just no good for a school - if you believe the Lib Dems

What has happened...

All our children are 'shoehorned' into Bishopbriggs High (1300 pupils) the school was built for less than a 1000.

Meanwhile the existing Thomas Muir School, that should have been demolished, is now being used by another school while they have a brand new school built on their 'cleared' site.

The promised sports provision is being 'shoehorned' onto the 'smaller site' plus 'bolted on' from two neighbouring Primary Schools (one across a main road).

The design of the school has to be 'shoehorned' into the only space left while the existing school is being used.

Amazingly, with all this known, the developers still believe there is 'surplus' land to be sold for profit at the Thomas Muir site.

The prime Bishopbriggs High School site will make them millions and Turnbull High will provide even more 'surplus' land to add to the windfall.

Ask yourself, if this is what the people of Bishopbriggs were sold when the Council decide to move the school for 'better educational' reasons.

Ask yourself, if the Interim School Board have keep you informed (their duty) of what has happened and taken 'your' advice?

Ask yourself, when May comes. you can then decide if this Council, who represent you, have done a good job!

Ask yourself, when the election for the new Academy School Board, that should have taken place in August 2006, if you want this board to continue.

Decide if I was wrong to tell you, from the start, that Bishopbriggs have compromised during a project where Bishopbriggs is the ONLY area to LOSE a school.

Comments welcome...

Sports facilities

We would all like to see more sports facilities but there is a limit to what local authorities can do with the land and resources available
Sandy McGarvey

Yes, especially when you decide to sell off large sections of land that is already zoned for education...

Quote of the year!


Full story in today's Herald

For anyone who has been privilege to read the planning report (I have). They would have noticed the section on the areas around the pitch being less than the recommended safety areas.

The developers stated...

their is insufficient space to provide full run-offs etc.

If they checked their plans again, the pitch sides run parallel to the 'surplus' land. The safety area could easily be achieved if this land was used for education not gain.

If the planning is approved, as is, the safety of pupils would be compromised to achieve better receipts for land sale.

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

Apples and Oranges?

The Transport Assessment is available on the council web site under planning. It also has an updated map (Sketch) of the changed access on Wester Cleddens Road (as posted earlier on the site).

Can you see anything wrong with the Site Location Plan (below) that compares the Bishopbriggs High School site and the Thomas Muir site? Why has the entire site at Thomas Muir been highlighted but only the school at Bishopbriggs High?
Surly not to make one site look larger than the other!


Reproduced under the terms of Faber Maunsell "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY" as published on their web site.

The plan indicates that Accident data has been requested from East Dunbartonshire Council but has NOT been provided.
(Page15 3.8)

Another interesting point was the bus journeys to school taken by pupils of Bishopbriggs High School and Thomas Muir before amalgamation.

Bishopbriggs High 5% (around 50 pupils) used the bus to get to school
Thomas Muir High 35% (around 200 pupils) used the bus to get to school

Thomas Muir had only 480 pupils (same report) my maths make 200 pupils around 42% not 35% or almost half.
Does that show it's more difficult to access this site?

The plan also agrees that Bishopbriggs Railway Station is now outside the Scottish Executive guidelines - that the acceptable walking distance for rail stations to a place of education or place of employment is 800m. Therefore, rail travel is not considered a viable transport mode for pupils or staff of Bishopbriggs Academy.

Not the case if the High School site had been agreed as public consultation wished.

Amazingly on page 20 the another map indicates bus stops and shelters. One of the stops is marked on the bus terminus which may not exist as it's part of the 'surplus' land the developers want to sell!

East Dunbartonshire Council policy on dealing with traffic impacts of new development is
provided in their memo of 18 January 2005 provided in Appendix B.

Under traffic impact...

During the time of writing, utilities works in Bishopbriggs Town Centre on Kirkintilloch Road
have been underway and this will have a significant impact on the traffic patterns within
Bishopbriggs as a whole. Therefore, it has not been possible to obtain any meaningful survey
data in the vicinity of the Thomas Muir site and no historic data was available either.

Importantly, the roads memo states...

“The implication of the above is that traffic capacity issues should not be used as a reason for refusing a planning application which the Planning Service is minded to grant….”

Two access options are proposed - as far as I am aware - no decision has been made on planning approval for the new school. I am also aware that work has started to create an access point indicated on one of the options.

Has the work has started before approval.

Worryingly on page 38

7.6.3.5 Rail Measures
Milngavie rail station is 1.6km walk from the school is above the maximum walking threshold
figure of 800m specified by the Scottish executive.

"Milngavie rail station" Same plan used for different schools or what?

Happy New Year

2007

Look back over the last year

It's this time of year when people look back...

This time last year we had the prospect of a super new school on the location the public wanted.

But things changed when the developers suggested the new school should be built on the Thomas Muir site.

Here's what they both said in an East Dunbartonshire Council communication "Staff guidance note".

Just a small change...

Both bidders have tabled an alternative solution... this may involve changes to the site, timing, decant arrangements or design of the new school.

Remember this vital sentence...

We are unable to show you the plans for the variant... considered commercially confidential whilst the bidders are competing.

So both builders suggested , independently, an alternative proposal to build on a different plot that would change decant arrangements etc. What reasons did each give?

Below are the reason from Bidder A variant scenario...



and the reason given by Bidder B variant scenario...



Again both independent, rival bidders, scenarios.

Can you spot the difference?

Here's some clues - most letters are the same, most words are the same, they're in the same order. In fact they are almost identical.

Another amazing coincidence, no doubt!

And why could you not see the alternate plans?

We are unable to show you the plans for the variant at this stage as they have not been developed beyond a sketch site layout to prove the site has adequate land to support a new school.

You can now! The 'variant' school - at the planning office. A school proposed by the preferred bidder, it was almost identical to the school proposed on the High School site, and rejected by the Council. Could that have been the reason you were not allowed to see it?

After all, you could see the other designs, by both developers, at that time, not confidential then.

You never did see the new proposal, well not until after the Council had decided to accept it.

The public were NOT consulted - I understand this is a requirement under the Scottish Office rules on PPP.

P.S. The Interim School Board never saw the variant design - but they did agree to the Council decision - before they made it!

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...

Number One on Google

Type 'Bishopbriggs Academy' into Google, the world largest search engine, and this site is No1.



Maybe that's because people learn more about what's going on at the academy here than from the Interim Board or the Council?

A big thank you to all the visitors who care about what happens in Bishopbriggs.

Google are no fools!

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.

Motion carried from meeting 12th December 2006

I would therefore move that the interim Board continue to negotiate on behalf of the parent body of Bishopbriggs Academy whilst the election process for a new School Board For Bishopbriggs Academy is put into operation and I would call for the Authority to call said election with immediate effect.

Boot out the board....

This comment was sent by a reader...

The letter detailing the 'disadvantages' of holding an election for the School Board makes interesting reading....if you support lawbreaking and dictatorship that is.

One disadvantage is that for the Academy Board to continue would mean that they are breaking the law.
I’m not sure that they are setting a very good example to pupils?

Costly? The PPP team have been posting out regular newsletters, four pages and in colour. The council has found the money for this so why not for giving parents a lawful and democratic say in the running of their school. After all they pay for the school through their taxes.

If not them – who? Sandy McGarvey? John Morrison? Margaret McNaughton?

Could take up to 12 weeks to complete? This is only a problem because the Board are doing this now rather than 12 weeks ago.

Places an administrative burden on the school? Well sorry I don't think that ‘it’s too much hassle to hold an election’ is a good reason not to hold an election. Updating the electoral register...shouldn't that be a pre-requisite for the school to know who the pupils’ parents are?

Postage costs? Well the interim Board saved a lot of money by not canvassing parents’ opinions in the lead up to the decision where the school should be built, so the school really owes them one. And was the school not being given extra resources because of the amalgamation...I seem to remember Sandy McGarvey saying that, wish I had got that in writing I suppose.

Finally and I quote...'Research shows parental involvement is not encouraged by elections’. This is being said by the people who presumably put themselves forward for election to get on the High School and Thomas Muir Boards. With low turnouts at election time not even Tony Blair would give that as a reason for stopping holding elections….maybe Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe should be looking to the Academy Board for some fresh ideas!

(You might have noticed that there is nowhere on the ballot paper for the voter to put their name to ensure that only parents with children at the school vote and that those who vote do so only once. This brings to mind the old saying about elections in Northern Ireland, ‘vote early and vote often’. Not that I’d condone parents photocopying the ballot papers and handing in lots of votes for their chosen option during the Christmas holidays.)

And what about the ‘Advantages’ of just keeping things the same until next year? It would minimise disruption to the education and welfare of pupils. How can this possibly be true? The election process does not involve pupils. Communication is via the post and how can an election affect pupils Health and Happiness? No the real advantage of this option is that it allows for continuity. But how much of an advantage this is, is open to question.

The current Board have never communicated with parents at any point in the amalgamation process.
They have never sought the views of parents regarding their preference for where the school should be built and now that the PPP team is turning them over they suddenly come running to the parents looking for help.

They deserve to be booted out. At Tuesday’s meeting, assuming enough people turn up, given the short notice and the enticement of hearing about ‘minor’ problems with the school design, parents need to stand up and be counted. We have the prospect of a great new school (albeit one where children will be in danger of being run over leaving school at 3.30 pm)…now we need a Board that can match the aspirations of the school…something the current Board are clearly unable to do.

Strong stuff

thanks for your opinion

How many letters?

Did you get one letter or two from the Interim School Board?

I only got one, the one without the contact details and election slip!

I know two were sent out as this site has received copies of both letters.

Saying no more....

Letter from Ken Low acting chair of Academy School Board?

I have taken the liberty of letting you know what happened at the Bishopbriggs Academy Board meeting on Tuesday night re the PPP planning application.

Basically we said to Sandy McGarvey:

There was no transport statement - how could we assess traffic impacts etc. without it?

The sports full-size pitch provision for
Douglas (roll of 1,021) is 4
Bearsden (1,174) is 3
Kirkintilloch (652) is 3
Bishopbriggs (1,146) is 2

- absolutely not was our core message over this;

It also turns out one of the documents supporting pitch provision is for the first proposal of basing the school at BBHS site and selling off TMHS site completely - not even planning had picked this up;

Education (through John Simmons) insist that the PE curriculum can be delivered - our SMT say that delivery will be extremely tight and almost impossible if we lost the use of the shared area with Woodhill Primary

We want them to investigate the land opposite us to see if we can purchase/lease a strip to put a new pitch on it

We also want to move the all weather pitch up to allow us to slightly lengthen the existing natural turf pitch and to move the athletics facilities onto the grass nearer Torr Road - at the moment the long-jump is on asphalt - surely this cannot be safe (in Douglas and Bearsden the long jump is surrounded by grass)

Overall car parking spaces etc. Bishopbriggs Academy is being short-changed e.g. the Games Hall is 594m2 (33m x 18m) whereas in Douglas it is 628m2 (34 x 18.5m) - I am not too fussed about a metre either side but when the Bishopbriggs High School Games Hall was built it was either (1.4m or 4m) short with the result non of the indoor pitches met the required standards for competition so EDC spent £1 million on a hall that could not take national competitions in football, badminton etc. What a waste and I don't want that repeated again

Many of the facilities are close to the minimum standard required and the SportScotland representative stated that they would challenge councils to provide better facilities - we did however accept that the quality of the facilities were better

Sandy has been tasked with maximising the facilities but also to maximise land receipts re Council meeting of June 2006 (well if two pitches can deliver the PE curriculum then he simply is failing in his second objective with regard to Douglas, Bearsden and Kirkintilloch - he should reduce them to two large pitches and increase the land receipts on these sites but he has not done that) - we as a Board don't want that to happen to any of these sites - we should maximise the facilities on all sites and we realise that both Douglas and Bearsden have already had a net loss of one pitch due to housing development however I don't think Sandy sees us as only having two pitches as a problem and

Fnally to fundamentally disagree that any of the land at the TMHS site was surplus (we are losing a 37m x 18m small rugby pitch (7-a-side pitch) and two Multi Use Games Areas although the shared arrangement would give us back the small pitch on a shared basis).

The meeting went on from 6.30 pm for Board members only and from 7 pm for invited participant and did not close until 10.30 pm

It was at times heated but we hope we presented a balanced but forceful case.

The next steps are to:

Prepare a response to Sandy McGarvey

Meet with associated primary school board chairs (or their whole boards and PTAs if they want)

Meet with Bishopbriggs parents on the 12th December at 7 pm in Bishopbriggs Academy

Start drafting our representation to the planning department with respect to
a) the school and
b) the surplus land outline application for housing

To prepare a media campaign to keep this in the public eye over the festive season right up to the planning application hearing and to meet with councillors over this to give them our views directly.

I am supplying this information to keep primary school board chairs appraised of what is happening and to the PPP reps of Douglas, Bearsden and Kirkintilloch secondaries as we had compared Bishopbriggs Academy to these school in our presentation.

We already appreciate the help we have had from other secondary PPP reps.

We fully support all of these schools in their efforts to get better facilities for their kids in their areas - we just want to be treated equitably by EDC in terms of sports provision.

I am grateful to Susan Murray for her attendance and input - at times what she said was very telling and was not lost on Sandy McGarvey.

I would also say that we would welcome your support if possible and we will be happy to answer any queries or questions by e-mail or phone.

Thanks.

Ken Low Acting Chair Bishopbriggs Academy School Board

I have written to Ken asking who the new Academy board members are and when they were elected. The Interim School Board has, since August, time to arrange elections.

Did anyone get an information on the Bishopbriggs Academy School Board elections?

Here is how a School Board should be elected School Board Act

I spoke to the Scottish Executive this afternoon, Ken has NO right to call himself acting chair of the Bishopbriggs Academy Board.

Good to see that Ken visited the site on the 8th of December at 4.05 pm.

The power of the Internet....