SPECIAL REPORT: Questions continue over Barrhead High project

Mr Kirkwood has provided documents to The News in support of his claim that the council played down the number of comments it received from parents and residents during the pre-application consultation phase of its proposal to build the new school at the council’s preferred site on common good land in the Cowan Park.

And he has also obtained information that suggests the council had looked into the possibility of building a new football stadium for Arthurlie FC on the site where the school is now being built.

The document entitled ‘Cowan Park Management Plan 2012-2022’ includes a diagram headed ‘Vision for Cowan Park’, which shows a football park marked out on a map where the new school will eventually sit.

Mr Kirkwood said a “light went on” when he saw the document because he thinks it could explain why the council was so determined to have its way.

He said: “I was astonished when I saw the drawings because nobody had ever mentioned this was even a possibility. It could explain why the council was so determined to build on the common good land because they wanted to build a football stadium in the South West area of the park where the school is now going to go.

“I think it’s important for the people of Barrhead to know the truth about how the council went about its business and by bringing these issues into the public domain I hope it will prove once and for all where responsibility for the rising costs of this project ultimately lies.” The revelations come after a long-running saga that saw ERC select common good land as its preferred location for the new school but was eventually forced to choose an alternative site after a court case which saw the overall cost of the project shoot up by several million pounds.

Mr Kirkwood has followed the project in detail through his role as chairman of The Friends of Cowan Park — a community group set up by ERC to help bring benefits to Cowan Park.

Ironically, Mr Kirkwood is now convinced that had the authority paid closer attention to the public’s concerns and followed a “proper and transparent” community engagement process, construction of the new school, originally expected to begin in January 2014, would already be nearing completion.

He spoke out after we reported, once again, the rising cost of the project in last week’s News.

The school was originally expected to cost around £22 million but now that figure has rocketed to more than £27 million due in large part to a fruitless legal battle that saw the council take its case in favour of constructing the school on common good land to the Court of Session.

The authority consistently maintained that it held the title deeds to the site, dismissing claims — which were proven to be correct — that it was common good land.

The outcome did not end as the authority had hoped with the court ruling the land, which was gifted to the people of Barrhead by James Cowan of Rosshall in 1910, could not be used in accordance with its plans.

The council, under pressure to progress the plan in order to ensure the funding from the Scottish Futures Trust (SFT) wasn’t withdrawn, was thereafter forced to abandon the original site.

Attention then swiftly turned to a new location in the south west area of the park, even though the authority had previously insisted there was no plan B.

In a letter dated October 14, 2013, Gemma Gordon, schools programme director at SFT, informed the council’s head of education Fiona Morrison, of the need to comply with the delivery timetable or risk seeing the funds being allocated to another project.

She wrote: “You will be aware that this investment programme is scheduled to be delivered from 2010-11 through to 2017-18. You will also be aware that your project was identified as one of the Phase 3 projects which has the potential to be onsite within 12-18 months of the September 2012 announcement.

“As noted in the Scottish Government’s terms and conditions of funding letter, it is important that we direct and drive forward our collective efforts to strive to achieve this timescale.

“SG reserves the right to reallocate funds previously agreed for any individual school in the event there is a material change in circumstances that affect the timescale for delivery of that school if an Authority cannot show that demonstrable effort has been undertaken.” The latest financial implications of the prolonged school project were detailed in a document presented to ERC’s cabinet earlier this month.

It revealed that ERC will be more than £100,000 over its spending budget because of the new school, which is now costing £5 million more than originally planned.

Council bean counters are now predicting a £111,000 shortfall in the council’s capital programme with the cost of the new school having shot up by £150,000 in the last financial year.

ERC is also having to demolish a recently-constructed £90,000 skatepark and the adjacent Johnny Kelly Pavilion and car park to make way for the new school.

This has further convinced Mr Kirkwood that the extra expense could have been avoided if officials had followed the correct procedures set out in the Scottish Government’s own community engagement planning documents and paid proper attention to the concerns raised by members of the public.

Mr Kirkwood points out that a survey carried out by Friends of Cowan Park — one of the stakeholder organisations identified by the council as part of its consultation process — attracted 123 responses from members of the public, all of which were emailed to the authority on October 31, 2013, one week before the deadline for submissions closed on November 6.

Receipt of the comments, the majority of which expressed concerns about the council’s proposals, was acknowledged the following day by Iain MacLean, the council’s head of environment.

But a subsequent pre-application consultation report published by the council makes no mention of the 123 responses and concludes that the consultation process complied with the relevant legislation, regulations and guidelines.

It noted: “A public exhibition was advertised and undertaken in an accessible location. There were a limited number of attendees (13), perhaps reflecting a relatively low level of concern about the principle of a new school due in part to extensive pre-consultation with all stakeholders. Most comments related to the legal ownership status and the possible loss of park land. Both these concerns have been addressed on this report.” It goes on to print just five comments from members of the public, only two of which make reference to site being left or belonging to the people of Barrhead.

There is no mention of the comments presented to the council by Friends of Cowan Park, and it addresses the issue of ownership by simply stating: “The council believes that the park is legally within its ownership and has approached the Court of Session for a formal response.” East Renfrewshire Council maintains that it has carried out all of its duties according to guidelines set out by the Scottish government.

It also says that it had no obligation to include responses gathered by the Friends of Cowan Park in the pre-application phase.

A spokeswoman for ERC said: “The building of the new Barrhead High is a fantastic development for the school community and for the town of Barrhead. It is disappointing that some are unable to move on from an entrenched position that seeks to criticize the project. The council has repeatedly confirmed that it fully respects the decision taken by the court in relation to the matter of common good land and on that basis is moving forward with an alternative site for the school.

“We were initially concerned that funding for the project could be affected given any delay, however all discussions with the funders have been positive and money is available for the new project.

“We can also confirm that there are no plans to use the red ash pitches for any particular use. In terms of our consultation around planning consent, we complied fully with all legislation.

“A pre-application consultation report is not required to contain all details of all representations.

“If FOCP had any concern their responses had not fully been take into account they were entitled to raise this at the time of the planning application.” Mr Kirkwood added: “For the avoidance of doubt, absolutely no-one was against the school in our town and it was only on its location that people wanted some discussion and to air their views.

“The new location for the school was the obvious choice from day one and was, for most people in the town, including school parents, the preferred location.” He says he made it his “mission” to keep in close contact with school parents and the parent council, and is well aware of their “anger” about the nature of the information coming from the council, for example the assertion that there was “no Plan B”, as well as the two year delay to the school and £5million of “wasted” public money.

“The project was mismanaged by East Renfrewshire Council right from the start and was riddled with incompetence and poor decision making, at a huge cost to all of us.

He added: “They behaved in a manner as though they were above the law and compliance with national standards for community engagement was in their “gift” i.e. to either choose to do it, or not so, and what they chose was to “run roughshod” over the community engagement process.

“There are lessons to be learned from what happened but no lessons are currently likely to be learned. The people of Barrhead and the wider East Renfrewshire community deserve better service and more respect.” Comments contained in the Friends’ survey which were never made public by the council include: The park was gifted to the people of Barrhead. It belongs to them not the council After all the park belongs to people of Barrhead. (Gifted) Cowan Park belongs to the people of Barrhead and as such should not be used for any other purpose The park belongs to the people of Barrhead not ERC I am very concerned that ERC think they own Cowan Park. A case for the court of session I think The Cowan Park has always belonged to the people of Barrhead and it is used on a daily basis by all ages