To:
Education Policy Board
On:
8 May 2014
___________________________________________________________________
Report by:
Director of Education and Leisure Services
___________________________________________________________________
Report on the consultation to develop the School Estate
Heading:
Management Plan (SEMP) and proposals to address the
property challenges in the primary and pre 5 estate.
___________________________________________________________________
1.
Summary
1.1.
School estate management planning is central to Renfrewshire Council’s
asset management strategy.
1.2.
Education and leisure services is required to provide Scottish Government
with an outline of its School Estate Management Plan (SEMP) on a regular
basis; an exercise which contributes to the Council’s corporate asset
management plan which is designed to ensure effective management of all
council assets.
1.3.
At its meeting in February 2013 Council approved a capital investment of
£30m for the further development of the school estate. Through careful
consideration of property core facts it was identified that the primary school
and pre 5 sectors present the most significant challenges for the Council.
1.4.
At its meeting of 22 August 2013 the education policy board agreed that
officers should engage with school communities to assess the opportunities to
rationalise buildings as distinct from closing schools; maintaining, where
possible, the current level of service.
1.5.
Through this process communities were asked to consider the benefits and
detriments of:
1.6.

denominational and non-denominational shared campuses;

integration of stand-alone pre 5 facilities and additional support needs
provisions into the surplus capacity within the primary school estate;

catchment review; and

capacity reduction.
A series of public meetings to highlight the property performance challenges
facing the Council were undertaken during October 2013. A note of
comments received at these meetings is available on request.
Page 1 of 18
1.7.
Thereafter focus groups reviewed, in more detail, the various illustrations
identified in the report “Consultation Proposal for the Development of the
School Estate Management Plan (SEMP) 2013”. This review was undertaken
in the context of comments received as part of the public meetings and
through the online survey “Renfrewshire Schools Questionnaire”. A note of
comments received at these meetings is available on request.
1.8.
At its meeting of 13 February 2014 Council approved the allocation of a
further £2.5m of capital investment to enhance the funding already secured for
improvement to the school estate, resulting in a total budget allocation of
£32.5m.
1.9.
At this time considerable work is being undertaken to ensure Renfrewshire
Council has sufficient property capacity to accommodate any changes in early
years provision resulting from the enactment of the Children and Young
People (Scotland) Bill and subsequent commitments made by the first minister
in relation to provision for two year olds.
1.10. Accordingly, it is recommended that where there is a requirement to enhance
the early years capacity of an establishment affected by this proposal and
where it is possible such works should be undertaken as part of the overall
SEMP with the budget of £32.5m supplemented as appropriate by funds
identified for property improvements within Pre 5 establishments
1.11. A separate programme of work will be established for those Pre 5 properties
which require property improvements to enhance capacity but are not affected
by this SEMP proposal.
1.12. The purpose of this report is therefore to advise the education policy board of
the outcome of the development work undertaken in relation to the SEMP and
to propose a school estate management plan, at section 7 of this report,
which is compliant with the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010),
amended through the enactment of the Children and Young People (Scotland)
Bill), and which provides the best educational experience for all learners in
accommodation which is fit for purpose.
1.13. To allow for proposed project phasing to be determined, development and
housing services have provided high level estimated budgetary information
noted in the tables at section 7.10 of this report. It is acknowledged that
further financial development work is required to provide robust individual
project budgets and this will be the subject of a future report to the education
policy board.
1.14. As it is anticipated that not all of the projects noted in the tables at section
7.10 are affordable at this time, it is recommended that any project approved,
but requiring formal consultation, should only be taken forward to the formal
consultation stage when the budget for the project has been identified and is
available.
1.15. As it is essential to understand the potential impact of changes within the
school estate an equality impact assessment has also been undertaken as
part of the SEMP development process and no adverse impact was reported
to the service. An equalities impact assessment is attached as appendix 9 to
this report
Page 2 of 18
___________________________________________________________________
2.
Recommendations
2.1.
Education policy board is asked to:

approve the school estate management plan and project phasing
proposed in section 7 of this report;

approve the development of all projects described as phase 1a, 1b and
1c of the school estate management plan as detailed in section 7 of this
report;

note that individual project costs detailed at section 7 of this report are
estimates which will be further developed to provide robust individual
project budgets;

note that, subject to approval of the school estate management plan, a
series of formal consultation reports will be brought forward in relation to
proposals affected by the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010),
amended through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill);

note that should further funds become available proposals described as
phases 2a, 2b and 3 as detailed in section 7 of this report will be brought
back to the education policy board for further consideration; and

note that schools in phase 2 continue to receive improvements through
corporate landlord.
___________________________________________________________________
3.
Background
3.1.
Renfrewshire Council’s vision for its school estate is to promote learning and
achievement, and to give our children and young people the opportunity to
learn in the best possible environment.
3.2.
The SEMP sits within the Council’s corporate asset management plan to
ensure the most effective use of all council assets. The purpose of the SEMP
is to set out a strategy to focus the resources available for new and
redesigned school and pre 5 accommodation.
3.3.
The SEMP is guided by Scottish Government’s 9 principles for school estate
management planning and the Council’s 4 objectives for the school estate in
Renfrewshire:
Scottish Government Principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Good consultation to support better outcomes;
Innovative design and change informed by experience;
A more integrated, holistic and longer term approach to change;
Schools must be in a condition to support and enhance their functions;
Schools must be more suitable and inclusive, better future proofed for
flexibility and adaptability;
6. Schools should be greener, more sustainable and environmentally
efficient;
Page 3 of 18
7. A well managed estate should represent and deliver best value;
8. Schools should drive and support effective learning and teaching; and
9. Schools should best serve their communities.
Council Objectives:
1. To provide the best educational experience for all learners in
Renfrewshire;
2. To satisfy the condition, sufficiency and suitability core facts;
3. To retain services within communities where possible; and
4. To provide environmentally and economically sustainable facilities with
lower carbon footprints.
3.4.
Through its school estate project team the Council continually reviews the
performance of the school estate in terms of core fact findings which relate to
the sufficiency, condition and suitability of buildings.
3.5.
The review also included an assessment of roll projections to inform the
options assessment process which supports the team in determining a basis
for resource prioritisation.
3.6.
The project team identified that the primary school and pre 5 sectors present
the most significant challenges for the Council.
3.7.
At its meeting of 22 August 2013 the education policy board agreed that
officers should engage with school communities to assess the opportunities to
rationalise buildings as distinct from closing schools; maintaining, where
possible, the current level of service.
3.8.
In keeping with the Council’s asset management strategy the focus of the
informal consultation was around the opportunities to rationalise buildings as
distinct from closing schools.
3.9.
Through this process communities were asked to consider:

the benefits and detriments of denominational and non-denominational
shared campuses;

the integration of stand-alone pre 5 facilities and additional support
needs provisions into the surplus capacity within the primary school
estate;

catchment review; and

capacity reduction.
3.10. A series of public meetings to highlight the property performance challenges
facing the Council were undertaken during October 2013.
3.11. Thereafter focus groups reviewed, in more detail, the various illustrations
identified in the report “Consultation Proposal for the Development of the
School Estate Management Plan (SEMP) 2013”.
3.12. This review was undertaken in the context of comments received as part of
the public consultation and through the Council’s online survey “Renfrewshire
Schools Questionnaire”.
__________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 18
4.
SEMP public meetings and developments since August 2013
4.1.
Advice from the Scottish Government suggests that councils which are
successful in asset rationalisation adopt a consultative approach, involving a
wide range of interested parties including Education Scotland, parent, pupil
and community groups, churches and elected members.
4.2.
Following agreement to consult on the development of the school estate
management plan arrangements to engage with communities on the SEMP
were determined and publicised through a number of channels including via
schools and the Council’s website.
4.3.
Responses were invited either through contributions to the public meetings or
by written submissions in hard copy or email to the director of education and
leisure services by 31 October 2013.
4.4.
Public meetings.
4.4.1. Four public meetings were held with parents and members of the
public. The attendance at these meetings is shown below:
Meeting
Erskine and surrounding area
West Paisley
Johnstone and surrounding area
North Paisley
Date
8 October 13
9 October 13
22 October 13
23 October 13
Numbers attending
96
39
148
58
4.4.2. At each public meeting a presentation was made by officers from
education and leisure services. The presentation outlined the property
challenges facing the Council, highlighting the opportunities available to
resolve these concerns.
4.4.3. Those in attendance were then invited to raise questions and notes of
the questions asked and the answers provided by education officers
were published on the Council website. A note of comments received
at these meetings is available on request.
4.4.4. As part of the process of information gathering an online questionnaire
was developed to ascertain the views of communities on a set of
principles central to the development of a school estate management
plan. 175 people responded to the questionnaire and a summary of
responses is available on request.
4.5.
Focus groups.
4.5.1. Membership of focus groups was determined through a ballot process
conducted by the head of Property Services. This ballot sought to
ensure representation for any establishment potentially affected by any
proposal which might be brought forward as a possible SEMP project.
Where no nomination was received from a particular school or pre 5
centre a request was made to head teachers to nominate a member of
the parent body to participate in the process.
4.5.2. Four focus group meetings were held with parents and members of the
public. The attendance at these meetings is shown below:
Page 5 of 18
Meeting
Date
North
Paisley
7 January 14
West
Paisley
8 January 14
Johnstone
14 January 14
and
surrounding
area
Erskine and 15 January 14
surrounding
area
Establishments
invited to take part
Arkleston, Gallowhill,
Mossvale, Newmains, St
Catherine’s, St John Ogilvie
and Williamsburgh Primary
Schools.
Glencoats, Heriot, St
Fergus’, St Paul’s and West
Primary Schools and Hugh
Smiley Pre 5 Centre.
Auchenlodment, Cochrane
Castle, East Fulton,
Fordbank, Our Lady of
Peace, St Anthony’s, St
David, St Fillan’s, St
Margaret’s Primary Schools
and Spateston Pre 5
Centre.
Bargarran, Bishopton,
Inchinnan, Rashielea, St
Anne’s and St John Bosco
Primary Schools
Establishments
represented
Arkleston, Gallowhill,
Mossvale, St
Catherine’s and
Primary Schools.
Glencoats, Heriot, St
Fergus’, St Paul’s and
West Primary Schools
and Hugh Smiley Pre
5 Centre.
Auchenlodment,
Cochrane Castle,
Fordbank, St
Anthony’s and St
David Primary Schools
and Spateston Pre 5
Centre.
Bargarran, Inchinnan,
Rashielea and St John
Bosco Primary
Schools
4.5.3. All focus group members were provided with a copy of the Council’s
board report “Consultation Proposal for the Development of the School
Estate Management Plan (SEMP) 2013”. Additionally, copies of the
minutes of public meetings, relating to specific geographic areas and a
summary of comments received through the Council’s online survey
“Renfrewshire Schools Questionnaire”, relating to specific geographic
areas, were also provided.
4.5.4. The groups agreed the scope for discussion should be based on the
Council board report and the collation of community responses
received through public meetings, submissions to the director of
education and leisure and through the online survey.
4.5.5. The scope for discussion was agreed by each focus group.
4.6.
In the report “Consultation Proposal for the Development of the School Estate
Management Plan (SEMP) 2013” a number of illustrations were used in
relation to specific schools to demonstrate possible solutions to particular
property challenges. Following the development exercise and ongoing
property improvements carried out by corporate landlord, a number of
changes became apparent. These changes have resulted in a revision of the
focus of the SEMP in respect of these establishments and an analysis of this
information is available on request.
__________________________________________________________________
5.
Identification of challenges
5.1.
School estate management plans are developed around an analysis of three
core facts relating to buildings and a consultative approach which seeks to
engage with communities on the challenges facing the Council. The core
facts are stated as sufficiency, condition and suitability.
Page 6 of 18
5.2.
An assessment of sufficiency provides a means to determine which schools
are under or over-occupied. This, along with data on pupil roll projections,
helps us achieve our sufficiency or occupancy objectives. The primary aim of
a sufficiency assessment is to offer an objective and consistent method of
identifying a surplus or deficit of pupil places in relation to current and
projected future demand.
5.3.
The physical condition of a school and its grounds has an immediate impact
on users. The condition core fact is based on the latest condition survey,
updated for any maintenance or repair work carried out in the intervening
periods. The condition rating assesses the physical elements of the school
including: playgrounds; external structures and services; security facilities;
and playing fields. Everything within the curtilage of the school is included in
the overall rating of each school’s condition.
5.4.
A suitability assessment helps us determine if the environment supports the
delivery of better services to meet the needs of individual children and the
needs of communities. The suitability of a school is determined by an
assessment of internal and external facilities. This assessment is carried out
by the school management team, informed by the Parent Council and
moderated by education and leisure services.
5.5.
Core fact scores are recorded on a scale of A to D and performance ratings
are summarised below:
Sufficiency
Good – Performing well
and operating efficiently.
Condition
Good – Performing as
intended and operating
efficiently.
Suitability
Good – Performing well
and operating efficiently.
B
Satisfactory –
Performing well but with
minor problems.
Satisfactory – Performing
well but with minor
problems.
C
Poor – Showing major
problems and/or not
operating efficiently.
Satisfactory –
Performing as
intended but showing
minor deterioration.
Poor – Showing major
defects and or not
operating as intended.
D
Bad – Accommodation
capacity severely
impedes service delivery.
Bad – Life expired
and/or serious risk of
imminent failure.
Unsuitable – does not
support the delivery of
services.
A
Poor – Showing major
problems and/or not
operating efficiently.
5.6.
While recognising the importance of condition and suitability core fact findings,
it is essential for the Council to address the inefficiencies inherent in large
school buildings which are affected by falling rolls and the sufficiency core fact
is therefore central to the development of this SEMP proposal.
5.7.
The situation at Mossvale / St James’ shared campus in Paisley is different
from the performance challenges referred to in any other establishments in
this report. St James’ Primary School has made a number of adaptations to
overcome operational difficulties as a result of over occupancy and although
the undernoted core fact analysis is positive it does not fully reflect the
challenges the school has faced.
Page 7 of 18
Establishment
1
2
5.8.
Sufficiency
Condition
Suitability
Rating
B
A
Rating
B
B
Rating
A
B
Mossvale Primary School
St James' Primary School (P)
The undernoted table provides an analysis of the performance of the
remaining 17 primary schools and 4 pre 5 centres which are rated less than
“A” or “B” in terms of condition, sufficiency and suitability.
Establishment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
2
3
4
5.9.
Auchenlodment Primary School
Bargarran Primary School
Brediland Primary School
East Fulton Primary School
Fordbank Primary School
Gallowhill Primary School
Heriot Primary School
Langbank Primary School
Lochfield Primary School
St Anne's Primary School
St Catherine's Primary School
St David's Primary School
St Fergus' Primary School
St Fillan's Primary School
St John Bosco Primary School
St Paul's Primary School
West Primary School
Glenburn Pre 5 Centre
Hugh Smillie Pre 5 Centre
Paisley Pre 5 Centre
Spateston Pre 5 Centre
Sufficiency
Condition
Suitability
Rating
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
C
C
C
B
C
D
C
C
C
C
A
A
A
A
Rating
B
B
C
B
A
C
B
B
B
C
C
A
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
Rating
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
The undernoted table is for reference only. It identifies those establishments,
not within the SEMP proposal, which may require investment in relation to the
potential need to expand early years provision. Investment at these
establishments would be the subject of a separate report to the education
policy board should the need to expand be confirmed.
Pre 5 Centre
1
2
3
4
Glendee Pre 5 Centre
Our Lady of Peace Pre 5 Centre
St Mary’s Pre 5 Centre
St Peter’s Pre 5 Centre
Page 8 of 18
Current
Capacity
100
50
30
30
Potential Capacity
Required
15
15
15
15
__________________________________________________________________
6.
Developing the SEMP
6.1.
Having updated the core fact data and assessed roll projections in respect of
the primary and pre 5 estates, Renfrewshire Council’s case for change and its
aspiration for the future of the primary school and pre 5 estates are stated
through detailed proposals provided in section 7 of the report.
6.2.
Through its SEMP the Council aims to provide the best educational
experience for all learners in accommodation which is categorised as “A” or
“B” in terms of the building’s condition, sufficiency and suitability.
6.3.
It has been identified that this can be achieved through a school estate
management plan which utilises a combination of approaches including: the
creation of denominational and non-denominational shared campuses; the
integration of stand-alone pre 5 facilities and additional support needs
provisions into the surplus capacity within the primary school estate;
catchment review; and capacity reduction.
6.4.
It is important to consider the impact of roll variation over a period of time and
it is therefore important to describe the rationale for the primary school roll
projection methodology.
6.5.
The model has four main elements:
6.5.1. The base year rolls are drawn from the relevant September pupil
census;
6.5.2. The expected P1 rolls for the remaining years of the projection period,
usually twelve years, are then calculated using birth rate figures drawn
from published data from the National Records of Scotland. Using an
average trend calculation for each school, the total numbers of births
are divided across all Renfrewshire schools;
6.5.3. In subsequent years the P2 –P7 projection is simply a reflection of the
previous year’s P1-P6 actual plus any new housing pupil yield figures;
and
6.5.4. As noted above, an adjustment is made for the number of pupils
expected from new housing within the school catchment area. This
data is taken from the planning service’s housing land audit. The
number of houses is then multiplied by an appropriate pupil yield ratio.
Different ratios are used for denominational and non-denomination
schools as well as different housing types (houses and flats). The total
P1-P7 figure is then spread across primaries 1 to 7.
6.6.
The roll projection and placing request trends for those schools potentially
affected by this proposal have been assessed and this information is available
on request.
6.7.
It is understood that particular action will be required in relation to the
increasing roll expected overtime at Bishopton Primary School. At this time
Bishopton Primary School does not present any immediate property
challenges and is therefore not included within the SEMP proposal.
Investment at this school would be the subject of a separate report to the
education policy board at the appropriate time.
Page 9 of 18
6.8.
Denominational pupils living in the Bishopton area are transported to St John
Bosco Primary School in Erskine. The potential impact of developments in
the Bishopton area affecting denominational provision will be addressed
through any SEMP action taken in relation to St John Bosco Primary School.
6.9.
An analysis of the performance of those schools and pre 5 centres identified
through the development process which require intervention through the
SEMP or in relation to adaptations required to enhance early years provisions
is available on request.
__________________________________________________________________
7.
SEMP Proposal
7.1.
A number of the recommendations within this SEMP proposal will require
formal consultation in line with The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act
2010, which will be amended through the enactment of the Children and
Young People (Scotland) Bill.
7.2.
Should the recommendations of this report be approved further reports would
be brought to the education policy board seeking approval to engage in formal
consultation on specific proposals.
7.3.
The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 makes provision for the
consultation process required to be undertaken by an education authority in
relation to proposals to amend the provision of schools within its jurisdiction.
7.4.
Schedule 1 of the act defines the circumstances pertaining to closure,
relocation and other such amendments to school provision.
7.5.
The proposals in this paper do not relate to any closure of service as defined
by the act however a number of the proposals do relate to relocation.
7.5.1. Relocation of a service is where the SEED number, management
structure and identity of the service is retained and only the location of
the service changes.
7.5.2. Formal consultation will be required in each circumstance where a
relocation is proposed in order to ensure full compliance with the act.
These requirements involve:





7.6.
the preparation of an educational benefits statement;
the preparation of a proposal paper;
notice being given of the proposal to all relevant consultees;
the holding of a public meeting; and
Education Scotland (formerly HMIe) being included in the
consultation process.
Potential SEMP proposals requiring formal consultation



The creation of a shared campus for Bargarran and St John Bosco
Primary Schools.
The creation of a shared campus for Gallowhill and St Catherine’s
Primary Schools and the catchment review involving St Catherine’s
and St John Ogilvie Primary Schools.
The co-location of St Paul's Primary School and Foxlea Pre 5
Centre
Page 10 of 18






7.7.
Potential SEMP proposals not requiring formal consultation











7.8.
The co-location of West Primary School and Hugh Smiley and
catchment review involving West and Glencoats.
The co-location of Spateston and St Anthony’s Primary School
Catchment review involving St Anne’s and St James’ (R) Primary
Schools.
Catchment review involving St David's and St Anthony’s Primary
Schools.
Catchment review involving St Fergus' and St Mary’s Primary
Schools.
Catchment review involving St Fillan’s and Our Lady of Peace
Primary Schools.
Catchment review involving Lochfield, Todholm and Williamsburgh
Primary Schools.
Capacity reduction at Auchenlodment Primary School.
Condition upgrade at Brediland Primary School.
Capacity reduction at East Fulton Primary School.
Capacity reduction at Heriot Primary School.
Capacity review and condition upgrade at St Anne's Primary
School
Capacity reduction at St David's Primary School
New build at St Fergus' Primary School
Capacity reduction at St Fillan's Primary School
Extension and refurbishment of St James’ and Mossvale Primary
Schools
Condition upgrade at Glenburn Pre 5 Centre
Condition upgrade at Paisley Pre 5 Centre
Having identified all of the challenges and potential solutions the SEMP
requires a clear basis for the prioritisation of projects. The table below is
organised in an order which ranks establishments on the basis of the
undernoted criteria:
1. the need to address the challenges facing establishments which
have occupancy and condition issues;
2. the need to address the challenges facing establishments which
have occupancy issues; and
3. the need to address the challenges facing establishments which
have condition issues.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Establishment / Project
Mossvale / St James' Primary Schools (P)
St Fergus' Primary School
St Anne's Primary School
St John Bosco and Bargarran Primary
Schools
Auchenlodment Primary School
St David's Primary School
St Paul's Primary School and Foxlea Pre
5 Centre
St Fillan's Primary School
Page 11 of 18
Case for Change
Over Occupancy (St James’ (P))
Sufficiency and Condition
Sufficiency and Condition
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
7.9.
East Fulton Primary School
West Primary School and Hugh Smiley
Pre 5 Centre
Heriot Primary School
Fordbank Primary School
Lochfield Primary School
Langbank Primary School
Spateston Pre 5 Centre and St Anthony’s
Primary School
St Catherine's and Gallowhill Primary
Schools
Brediland Primary School
Glenburn Pre 5 Centre
Paisley Pre 5 Centre
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Sufficiency
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Having determined the priorities within the SEMP it is then essential to
determine the phasing of proposals in the context of legislative requirements;
logistics and operational impact; and financial resources.
7.10. The phasing, timescales and estimated costs of projects are articulated in the
undernoted tables.

Phase 1a and 1b are considered to be priority projects which are
affordable and can be progressed at this time;

Phase 2a and 2b are projects which could be taken forward when
resources become available;

Phase 3 are projects which could be referred to corporate landlord to
address the condition challenges in these establishments; and

Catchment reviews (Phase 1c) have been proposed on the basis of
conducting formal consultations to affect change over the next 3 school
sessions, August ’15, August ‘16 and August ’17. Any formal
consultations would be taken forward in line with the Schools
(Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 amended through the enactment of the
Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill.
Phase 1a (no consultation required)
Project
Earliest
project
start date
Earliest
completion date
Estimated
budget
(subject to approval of
project start date)
(subject to
board
approval)
Refurbishment and extension of
St James’ and Mossvale shared
campus incorporating the
integration of Mossvale nursery
class into the main building.
May ‘14
Page 12 of 18
January ‘17
£4m
Capacity reduction and minor
adaptation of St David’s Primary
School.
May’14
August ‘14
N/A
Capacity reduction and minor
adaptation of St Fillan’s Primary
School.
May’14
August ‘15
£0.047m
Capacity reduction and minor
adaptation of East Fulton
Primary School.
May’14
August ‘15
£0.100m
Phase 1b (consultation required)
Project
Earliest
consultation
start date
Earliest
completion
date
Estimated
budget
(subject to
(subject to
board approval
approval of
of request to project start date)
consult)
New build St Fergus’ Primary
School.
May’14
April ‘17
£5.350m
Seek board approval to consult
on the creation of a fully
refurbished shared campus with
extended nursery provision at St
John Bosco and Bargarran
Primary Schools.
May ‘15
January ‘18
£11m
Seek board approval to consult
on the co-location of St Paul’s
Primary School and Foxlea Pre
5 Centre in a fully refurbished St
Paul’s Primary School building.
Nov ‘15
August ‘18
£6m
Seek board approval to consult
on the co-location of St
Anthony’s Primary School and
Spateston Pre 5 Centre in a fully
refurbished St Anthony’s
Primary School; and
May ‘16
March ‘19
£6m
Review St Anthony’s Primary
School catchment with St
David’s Primary School.
Page 13 of 18
Phase 1c Catchment reviews (consultation required)
Project
Earliest
consultation
start date
Earliest
completion
date
Estimated
budget
(subject to
board
approval)
(subject to
positive
outcome of the
consultation
and
subsequent
board
approval)
Seek board approval to consult
on St Anne’s Primary School
catchment review with St
James’ Primary School (R).
August ‘14
August ‘15
N/A
Seek board approval to consult
on St Fillan’s Primary School
catchment review with Our Lady
of Peace Primary School.
August ‘14
August ‘15
N/A
Seek board approval to consult
on St Fergus’ Primary School
catchment review with St Mary’s
Primary School.
August ‘14
August ‘15
N/A
Seek board approval to consult
on catchment review affecting
Lochfield, Todholm and
Williamsburgh Primary Schools
August ‘15
August ‘16
N/A
Seek board approval to consult
on catchment review affecting
West and Glencoats Primary
Schools
August ‘15
August ‘16
N/A
Seek board approval to consult
on catchment review affecting St
Catherine’s and St John Ogilvie
Primary Schools
August ‘15
August ‘16
N/A
Phase 2a (no consultation required)

Capacity reduction and minor adaptation of Auchenlodment Primary
School.

Capacity reduction and minor adaptation of Heriot Primary School.
Page 14 of 18
Phase 2b (consultation required)

Seek board approval to consult on the co-location of West Primary
School and Hugh Smiley

Further consideration of the creation of a shared campus at St
Catherine’s and Gallowhill Primary Schools is required in the context of
information received from Scottish Government in January 2014
regarding the potential requirement to expand early years provision in
this area.
Phase 3 (no consultation required)

Condition upgrade at St Anne’s Primary School.

Condition upgrade at Brediland Primary School.

Condition upgrade at Glenburn Pre 5 centre.

Condition upgrade at Paisley Pre 5 Centre.
7.11. At this point, and to allow for the project phasing to be determined,
development and housing services have provided high level estimated
budgetary information noted in the tables at section 7.10 above.
7.12. The total investment for the SEMP is £32.5m however this will be
supplemented by funds identified for property improvements within Pre 5
establishments and further work is required to provide robust individual project
budgets which will be the subject of a future report to the education policy
board.
7.13. It is recommended that any project approved, but requiring formal
consultation, should only be taken forward to the formal consultation stage
when the budget for the project has been identified and is available.
__________________________________________________________________
8.
Impact on school communities
8.1.
Where the SEMP recommends any form of refurbishment or adaptation it is
most likely that there will be, to varying degrees, disruption to the school
community for the duration of the programme of work.
8.2.
Renfrewshire Council is experienced in disruption management arrangements
and any works planned for any school while the school is in session would be
managed through this process.
8.3.
The headteacher and project manager would assume responsibility for the
day to day management of the plan and staff, pupils, parents, professional
bodies and trade unions would be updated through an agreed
communications arrangement determined at a local level.
8.4.
At this time Renfrewshire Council has temporary accommodation which could
be re-sited to particular project school sites to operate as temporary
accommodation in lieu of classrooms / other areas which are out of
commission due to refurbishment or adaptation. This approach supports a
Page 15 of 18
“phased insitu refurbishment” where the refurbishment programme operates
around the requirements of the school.
8.5.
In previous SEMPs alternative accommodation arrangements have been
implemented where an insitu refurbishment was deemed to be unsuitable.
This has previously involved the temporary decant of the entire school to an
alternative location.
8.6.
While this was regarded to be effective in some circumstances it is not the
preferred option in relation to this SEMP proposal as the cost implications of
adapting an alternative building and transporting the pupil body are
considerable. Additionally, this approach was not universally supported by
the parent body; some of whom raised concern regarding the extension to the
length of the school day required to allow for transport pick up and drop offs.
8.7.
In some circumstances however, it may be appropriate to consider this option
in consultation with specific school communities where it is felt that full scale
insitu refurbishment projects may be detrimental to the school community.
8.8.
To allow for this contingency it is suggested that the proposed demolition of
Clippens School in Linwood is deferred further to potential negotiations
regarding specific refurbishment projects.
__________________________________________________________________
9.
Equality impact assessment
9.1.
As it is essential to understand the potential impact of changes within the
school estate an equality impact assessment was undertaken as part of the
SEMP development exercise.
9.2.
This assessment is available on request.
___________________________________________________________________
Implications of this report
1.
Financial Implications
The total investment for the SEMP is £32.5m however this will be
supplemented by funds identified for property improvements within Pre 5
establishments.
The estimated cost of undertaking the projects within phase 1a and 1b are
in the region of £32.5m. However, further work is required to provide robust
individual project budgets and this will be the subject of a future report to the
education policy board.
2.
HR and Organisational Development Implications
None.
3.
Community Plan/Council Plan Implications
Children and Young
People
- An improved school environment supports
learning and achievement.
Page 16 of 18
Community Care, Health
and Well-being
- An improved school environment supports
health and wellbeing.
Empowering our
Communities
- None
Greener
Jobs and the Economy
- Sustainable approaches to ensuring high
quality assets will be developed.
- None
Safer and Stronger
- None
4.
Legal Implications
Should there be support for an approach which includes the creation of
shared campuses, co-location of facilities or catchment review in any areas
a formal consultation will be undertaken, adhering to the procedures
required to take forward any proposal in terms of the Schools (Consultation)
(Scotland) Act 2010 amended through the enactment of the Children and
Young People (Scotland) Bill.
5.
Property/Assets Implications
This proposal aims to deliver a school estate management plan designed to
provide sustainable accommodation that is fit for education in the 21st
century.
6.
Information Technology Implications
None.
7.
Equality and Human Rights Implications
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. An equalities impact assessment is available on request.
8.
Health and Safety Implications
None.
9.
Procurement Implications
The procurement model for the delivery of the SEMP will be the subject of a
future report.
10.
Risk Implications
None.
11.
Privacy Impact
None.
12.
COSLA Policy Position
None.
Page 17 of 18
List of Background Papers
(a)
Background Paper 1:
Consultation Proposal for the Development of
the School Estate Management Plan (SEMP)
2013
The foregoing background papers will be retained within ELS for inspection by the
public for the prescribed period of four years from the date of the meeting. The
contact officer within the service is Ian Thomson, education manager (resources).
0141 618 7241, ian.thomson@renfrewshire.gov.uk
___________________________________________________________________
Education and Leisure Services
ICT/GMcK/LG
30 April 2014
Author: Ian Thomson, education manager (resources). 0141 618 7241,
ian.thomson@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 18 of 18