Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I'm appalled! The view from Pipelands affords one of the best panoromas of St Andrews -- the only
one accessible from town other than by car. Fife Council shouldn't be proposing to site such a large
building there, especially when the Pond Site offers a better alternative -- had the Council the vision
& ambition to see it. Moreover, I think Fife Council finds itself hopelessly compromised concerning
this matter: its duty is to protect the green-belt, not despoil it!
about time there has been a disgraceful waste of every one's time it is pathetic
I would have been happy with a rebuild but the Pipeland site seems like a sensible alternative.
I think this is an ideal site for the new school - open, light, spacious with wonderful outlooks. Staff
and pupils alike will thrive in this environment I am sure!
Petheram Bridge would be a superior site, but if the options are between Pipeland and remaining at
Kilrymont, then Pipeland is preferable. Kilrymont is on the wrong side of town and unsuitable for
school transport.
site is in the green belt and offers no advantages over the kilrymont site regarding transport of pupils.
no plans are available to view and there does not appear to be enough information available for
anyone to make a truly informed decision - the link on your website for information regarding the
pipeland proposal links to one about buckhave and leven
Please do not delay any further- our children are in desperate need of a new school. As parents we
are becoming very frustrated with the politics which is delaying this build.
Yes because it is not Kilrymont but I feel a school around the Petheram Bridge area would be more
beneficial to the pupils coming from the Taybridgehead area and to the residents of St Andrews.
I wholeheartedly support this proposal. While it is not ideal for students being bussed in from outside
St Andrews, it is well-located for students within the town (centrally to residential areas) so should
support walking/cycling for all children within St Andrews. Yes, it's on greenbelt land, but this cannot
be a block. There's a hospital already there and this, surely, is of a similar category of important
municipal building - not opening the door to residential/industrial developments. PLEASE, Fife
Council, push this forward with everything you have and don't let the bored, trouble making Nimbies
derail or even delay this plan. The children of this area need this school and this argument has
dragged up far, far too long already.
Not a good site - location or landscape. All the buses will have to right through the town. It could take
a very long time to get planning permission meaning that the process will go on and on and an actual
new school will be unlikely.
I do not think that Pipelands is the best site for the new Madras..A school on the western approach
to St Andrews would better serve the majority of pupils who attend the school whilst still being
conveniently located for St Andrews area pupils.However, the last thing I would want, should the
proposal not succeed, is a return to the Kilrymont option- if all else fails PLEASE DO NOT RETURN
TO KILRYMONT! Pipelands would be preferable, ANYTHING would be preferable to Kilrymont.
I am very disappointed that a site to the west of the town cannot be found. However, the whole
process has taken so long that the top priority must be a new school as early as possible, so I am
prepared to compromise on the site if this can be delivered quickly.
I do not agree with building in a greenbelt site and think that would be detrimental to the town as a
whole. I do not agree with a site that would continue to require children to be bussed through town. I
urge those involved to reconsider building in Tayport area and the South Street campus being
renovated as I believe it to be important to keep local children being educated in a beautiful building
in the heart of our community which in turn also supports local businesses. This would radically
reduce the number of children requiring transport, most being able to walk or cycle, thus reducing
cost of transport over the years, carbon footprint, conjestion and parking issues associated with
transporting the vast majority of pupils to school - surely the best long term solution.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
In light of the need to reduce our carbon footprint, this proposal does NOTHING to help the planet.
The roads are already in a state of disrepair & traffic congestion will build up along Largo Road. The
prospect of 1400 pupils attempting to cross the road at lunchtime to go to Morrisons supermarket is
a health & safety issue. At present, living on the corner of Scooniehill Road/Largo Road, the volume
of daily traffic I witness, is horrendous. I have witnessed several "near misses" with pupils trying to
jump the lights at the crossing. Having fought long & hard to secure the southern hillside under the
Green Belt mantle, the proposed new school site would endanger this protected area. It could pave
the way for further developments being proposed for the rest of the land. I personally feel that Fife
Council should consider the proposal for a new build on the North Haugh "pond site" & an underpass
to the playing fields at Station Park. This, in my opinion is the most logical & sensible site.
At this time, pipeland offers the best situation. IT complies with the 'Under one Roof' policy by Fife
Council. It can all be situated on one site and no decant will be required. Get it built as soon as
possible please.
The Pioeland site offers the best situation. All facilities can be 'Under one Roof' and there will be no
need for a decant therefore there will be no disruption to pupils. Both staff and pupil morale is low
due to the poor environmental conditions both at Kilrymont and South Street.
Madras College (Kilrymont) is not a very good environment to work in and it is close to Morrisons.
Staff and pupils are having to work in poor conditions. A new school is long overdue. You need a
nice teaching and learning environment for all to create good morale.
I appreciate the concern regarding the water presure, water drainage to name just a couple that
have been raised however I think these could be overcome and dealt with to use this site to provide
a centralised one site secondary school so essential considering the extreme state of disrepair at
both Kilrymont and Madras. Looking at the comparison of the other sites it would seem to pick most
of the boxes and have resolvable issues. I fully support the suggestion of Pipeland Site
This by far the best option for the new build school. It is in a great location on the outskirts of town
which will reduce traffic problems in the town from school buses. It will also allow children to have
direct access to sporting facilities rather then using playing fields in a different location.
If you build on the pipelands site there will be no swimming pool and the children will have further to
travel on the bus directly though the middle of St Andrews. Most children travel in from outside St
Andrews toward Dundee and this will add to the journey required.
At the wrong end of the town. If you want a school in this area then rebuild Kilrymont. The school will
have to be built on a slope/levels. This will cause problems with flow of pupils and time it will take for
pupils to travel between classes. A poor compromise.
The business case is far better than the previous refurb of kilrymont.
Pipeland seems the ideal site for the new school to be built, it by-passes the need to travel through
the housing development, has plenty of room for a new school and isn't too far from the existing
school at Kirlymont. The land has already been used for the new hospital, so any 'green belt'
objections are moot. The children deserve a decent school finally!
Building needs to commence now. The children deserve this new build that will preserve the
greenbelt
My Son is in P5 and deserves to attend a secondary school fit for purpose, otherwise like many
friends we will be applying for places at Bell Baxter and not sending our kids to the substandard
Madras
My son is in P5 in Strathkinness and like many other parents we are increasingly concerned about
lack of movement on the new Madras site. Our only other option is to plump for Bell Baxter in Cupar
that has a school fit for purpose
This appears to be the only suitable site in St Andrews, in view of the present economic situation of
the country. The building would not effect the panorama of the town, from any angle, and would be
well placed for access.
Like the re build at Kilrymont
It's finally time we had action on this proposal. The pupils are in desperate need of a new school
immediately and this is the only option to tick all appropriate boxes.
There has been no consideration of Tay Bridgehead sites which would be more suitable to the vast
majority of pupils.
I think there should be a bridghead school.
Please consider the needs of the Bridgehead and other surrounding areas.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
A second school at the Bridgehead for both Primary & Secondary students is a better plan for the
families involved.
There are many more manageable and desirable sites on which to build. A school in Tay
Bridgehead, Wormit or Newport would directly affect the children living in these areas rather than
bussing them miles outside of their home villages. Additionally the Pipelands area has no room for
physical education/recess and is very expensive
The Tay Bridgehead sites would be much more convenient for the majority of pupils.
Additional journey time and traffic disruption created by use of this location. Use of green belt will set
a precedent and St Andrews will be awash with tacky small affordable 5 & 6 bedroom houses full of
local people with their non English ways.
the fact the proposal is to build on 'green belt' it is important that the carbon footprint is as minimal as
a school can be. the school should a flag ship for all of scotland in its innivation and green design
Location does not well serve the out-of-town pupils. Intrusion on the southern hillside is problematic.
Prefer: 1. South of A91 at town entrance ("pond site") 2. Rebuild in present location
Land needs to be bought which takes away from money available to build the school, especially as
40 million set aside will no longer be worth that because of construction inflation .Will it actually be
possible to get planning permission given it is green belt site - how long will it take given the amount
of opposition there will; be to the build- we could be waiting years. You could get more for your
money if Kilrymont was refurbished and it could be achieved in a much shorter peiod of time. It is
teachers that do the teaching not a buliding!
They should start the building with a car park under ground for all staff and visitors to use so not
wasting ground and to make sure there is enough parking. So as not to repeat the Hospital
INADEQUATE parking and room for buses to wait with out sitting on a road.
I am not concerned that the proposed site is Green Belt. Planning permission should be given as the
education of the children of St Andrews is more important than the town's appearance.
Transport - schools buses and parents cars on the most congested roads in town, junctions already
desperately require improvement Build the school on the side of town the buses all come in from
(Gaurdbridge side)
Local Plan is to build 1000s of new houses on the other side of town from the pipeland road site.
Would it not make more sense to build a new school in the same land zoned for housing instead of
the green belt
Do we really have to destroy more of the open space around St.Andrews. We already have two
Madras sites - build a new school on one of them!
Good site out of the centre of st andrews
Very little information available and no detailed plans or coatings. On the green belt and difficult
transport access to site. Rushed and any school on that site would be a compromise.
the money will be better spent improving the current building at kilrymount road
Without a doubt the emphasis needs to be placed on delivering a school that provides a practical
environment for learning for both children and teachers, before the current generation are parents
themselves.
I support the proposal, but am disappointed that a satisfactory site on the Western edge of St
Andrews could not be agreed upon.
What's the point of having a green belt to protect the town Children still bussed through the centre of
town when most live towards Newport/tayport direction Biased reporting towards pipeland site is
atrocious Site at university pond with access to station park and university takes on south street, if
that doesn't happen both kilrymont and south street redundant - then what
This is a green belt site. I believe it too small. It will still mean that pupils will have to travel by bus
through the town. The alternative site at the North Haugh which I believe has been offered by the
University is more suitable in terms of position, access for pupils, reducing transport costs and
continuing use of Station Park plating fields
I think it will be easier if the school is at the north haugh because the busses won't have to go
through town, there is more space, there wont have to be as many sports facilities built because the
school can use Station park more, the school won't have to be built on a green belt area and it is
easier to get to than Pipeland road. Also the Pipeland road area has just been built on ( with the
hospital ) and I don't think people living around there will like it .
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I think this is by far the best place to build a school for St Andrews that will avoid the myriad of
potential planning problems that the other proposed sites will have to fight through. Additionally it will
be possible to build the school without having to decant students for years forcing them to learn in
unsuitable temporary cabins. The site at pipeland behind the Community Hospital is ideal for the
school and while it is a small invasion of the green belt I think the benefits far outweigh the
negatives. it is clear that if the school was built on this site then any further incursion into the green
belt should not happen but as the site as already been developed for the hospital and the site is not
in a conspicuous or visible part of the town I think the impact will be minimal. people who campaign
against this site obviously do not have children or do not care about the younger generations
growing up in this town.
I think it is a great idea and it will be good for people with disabilities.
Will you have big rugby pitches.
I like the idea of a big area for the sports.
I like the idea of going to a new school and larger corridors.
I like the idea of light from windows. I like the idea of the place. I like the idea of a large sport area.
I like the idea of a large sport area. I like all the glass surroundings. I like all the space.
It would be ace to have it new and clean.
I like the idea of a big area for sports.
I would say there is to much sports. Why don't we just buy Bell Baxter and then keep building and
buy more land to keep building.
I think it is good that it is beside a hospital that's the bonus. It should have a big car park so people
will have space to park.
I think it is a good idea because it is next to the hospital so if someone is ill they can just got to the
hospital and it will be more modern than the one we have and it should be more clean than the ones
that are old.
The school looks cool. It is a brill idea you should really build it!!!
I would like a great secondary school and this sounds like a great idea and the outdoor sports place
looks REALLY big! So I would really like a new Madras School.
I think it is a good idea.
I think its good there is a lot of playing fields so loads of people can do sports at the same time. It
sounds really good.
Is there a park?
I am happy that there is a hospital near.
We and our children have waited long enough for this, it is shocking that the children have had to
make do with sub-standard accommodation for this long as it is.
I think we have waited so long for a single site that it should go ahead ASAP
Given that this pro9ject is now 2 hears beyond the initial completion date, I feel that it is more
important to be decisive and move forward. If the Pipeland Site meets the needs, lets get on with it
and build a much needed fantastic new school.
I think that there should be a single school because they will be all together.
The proposal seems to provide a state of the art new school providing the pupils of today and
tomorrow the infrastructure/ foundations to support a high quality education. Being single site is
important for building links and good communication between the pupils of all ages as well as
teachers
The best option for pupils and the town would be the 'Pondsite. It is the side of town which has
agreed expansion plans for another 1000 houses. It will reduce the bus traffic through the town and
reduce the number of pupils having to travel across town. It is away from the new hospital with
palliative care wards and away from Morrison's. The playing fields are adjacent and ready for use.
Besides it seems incomprehensible that the newly agree 'Green Belt' is about to be built upon.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
1. The Pipeland site is on the recently designated Green Belt which Fife Council agreed on and now
propose to break it. 2. Once the school is built, there is every likelihood that further development will
be approved making nonsense of the Green Belt agreement as well as destroying the landscape
setting of St. Andrews. 3. The school will be built alongside the hospital where there are palliative
wards - inevitable congestion of traffic, both cars & pedestrians and as the school would be used in
the evenings, noise levels would be unacceptable. 4. A majority of the pupils have to be bussed in
from the other side of the town so buses would cause extra traffic congestion through town. 5.
Constant stream of pupils would be making their way to Morrisons during breaks which means
passing both hospital and over busy road. 6. Plans include new playing fields at Pipeland which
makes the existing Station Park facilities redundant. 7. Floodlighting playing fields during evening
and night time would be highly visible to neighbouring housing and the hospital 8. As there are likely
to be massive objections to use of this site, the plans are likely to be called in to the Scottish
Government which will mean yet more delays - a new Madras school is needed NOW 9. Pipeland is
not the only suitable site available - an alternative does exist on the North Haugh - the right side of
town and opposite the existing sports facilities at Station Park. The Council has not given adequate
reasons for their rejection of this site.
Wrong place - agricultural land, green belt, more planning approval problems likely, south side of
town, less convenient for Bridgehead pupils & parents (approx 65% of school population) and for
ongoing cooperation with university, no existing playing fields, continued bussing through town by 18
buses therefore more pollution and congestion plus higher ongoing costs for 50+ years, sloping site
so more earth moving and maybe drainage problems, traffic through town during construction, and
permanent impact on hospital traffic and maybe fire station traffic thereafter. North Haugh site would
avoid all or very nearly all these objections, is immediately available, and University has recently said
it is willing to swap it for the existing South Street site. That would retain South Street for educational
purposes and avoid the Council having to find a buyer for it as well as Kilrymont. Even if the North
Haugh proved slightly more expensive initially (and why are like-for-like fully-comprehensive budgets
with fair land valuations for each not available now') the difference would almost certainly be
negligible over 50+ years especially if the reduced bussing costs were allowed for, and in any case it
would surely be worth while to provide the right school on the best possible location for the next ten
generations or more of pupils and teachers. Think big, with aspirations to match, rather than a
second-best but far inferior compromise born out of frustration after ten years of talk and talk and
more indecision! The Govt Reporters said in 2012 that the Green Belt must be maintained, and
Pipeland would be against Fife Council's own planning policy, which adopted it as Green Belt only in
Oct 2012! It is ludicrous that two public or semi-public bodies like the Council and University cannot
seem to agree sensible terms quickly for such an obviously sensible solution.
I fully support the proposal and welcome the opportunity to deliver a school which meets the needs
of children in the 21st century. This is long overdue, and it is a disgrace that it has been repeatedly
delayed for almost a generation, during which time many, many children have lost out on the type of
facility which should automatically be their right in this country. Why should our children be educated
in a sub standard building, with buckets collecting rainwater, and with staff morale at rock bottom.
Perhaps those who are selfishly standing in the way of the development should be invited to view the
current facility. What possible justification can there be for delaying this any further'
My friend's sister goes to Madras and she says they have buckets to collect water when it's raining
and there is a room they can use. I don't want to go to a school like this.
Right idea, wrong location.
This site is in an ideal location for the pupils who live in St. Andrews, as most would be able to walk
to school.
Time to think of education rather than inter-party wrangling and apparently refusing to consider ALL
related points
Should be done at existing Kilrymont Road Site
Green belt must be maintained. Is the new school easily accessible from the town centre'
The site at pipeland is ideal location, close to many main bus routes and far enough out of town to
avoid restricting the already congested traffic
Close to many main bus routes. A fairly quiet location away from major bussel of traffic. It is on a site
where they can have the option to expand.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
In these difficult circumstances it is necessary to treat the desperate need for a new school as an
exception in line with the development of the hospital which proceeded even in the knowledge that
the site was to become green belt. It is not a remarkable area but provides a straight forward site for
a new build school which will serve the surrounding residential areas well. It does not in anyway and
affect the historic heart of St. Andrews where preservation efforts should be concentrated. Our town
needs to move forward now.
As there will never be a perfect solution to the madras solution pipeland ticks the most boxes
Our children need this school
I would like to have a good school. All together with our playing fields outside
I would like my new school to be built on pipeland cos it is in the middle of our town
This is the best place in St. Andrews to have a single site school. It needs to be built now the kids
are suffering!
Other sites do no offer the same opportunity for 1st class education, this site has to be approved
ASAP.
Needs to be approved quickly in order to give pupils the high quality school they deserve!
Please can you start building the new Madras as soon as possible. The old ones need replaced.
Unsuitable - too near Hospital and still causing mayhem with pupils being bussed through town to
site. Should only be a green site.
I support the Pipeland site as the only practical second choice since the plans to build in partnership
with the University fell through. I still feel that it is a great shame that the Council couldn't see past
their differences with the University and put the education of the children of St Andrews first. Living in
a town with a prestigious university, we should be taking every advantage possible of the links that
can be built with the university for the benefit of the pupils. Having said that, the current situation is
untenable and the sooner the decision is made to build a single site school for the young people in
St Andrews the better. I also believe that a seperate school should be built for the Taybridgehead
area as bussing children such a long distance to school makes no sense. I am looking forward to a
new, fit for purpose school for my children to attend when the time comes - a town as prestigious as
St Andrews should have a school that it can be truly proud of.
The overriding of greenbelt designation is something that diminishes faith in and respect for the
entire planning process. It cannot be justified and shoulkd not be allowed. At some point in the future
there may be justification for reviewing greenbelt but it should never arise from a specific planning
proposal like this. Apart from anything else, there are better sites elsewhere for this particular
development.
The site is inappropriate for a number of educational and related reasons. Very large numbers of
pupils will have to be bussed through St. Andrews to get to school. Placing a large school next to a
hospital with palliative care facilities is bizarre, if not thoughtless, to say the least. Additionally pupils
would gravitate towards Morrisons at times during the day and be a danger both to themselves and
to drivers on a busy road. Construction will be delayed significantly because of a wide range of
objections to building on the newly approved and adopted Green Belt. A good viable and
educationally preferable alternative site exists at the North Haugh (the so-called "pond site").
Fife council is proposing to build the school on green belt land which will entail bussing probably
80% of pupils through St Andrews for approximately the next forty years. This could be avoided by
siting the school at the western entrance to the town or by building a school at the Tay bridgehead,
where a larger proportion of pupils will live as house prices in St Andrews become outwith the
pockets of most families. Many parents naturally do not have a long-term view of the impact on St
Andrews, as they do not live there. The present buildings have not been properly maintained, but
having taught there for more than thirty years, I do not feel a hasty solution to get parental votes
should be sought. The inflated land values of the St Andrews buildings will ensure Fife council has
enough money from their sale to pay for any extras needed for the new school outwith greenbelt.
A green belt around the historic city of St Andrews was established to preserve its landscape setting
from such developments. Insufficient consideration has been given to the importance of preserving
the city's character and environment. North Haugh is a much better site because numerous school
buses will not go through the town. This will (a) save on transport costs (b) reduce students'
travelling time and (c) be an environmental gain for the town. The site is well screened and adjacent
to existing playing fields. The claim that there are high ground preparation costs will lack credibility
until the Council adequately answers the claim that they are overestimated.
The proposal violates the green belt.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
There is a far better option at the pond site.I know there are problems in the area, but having worked
on the North Haugh for over 40 years, in a building built in the 60s, they can be overcome, and I
would hope building methods have improved a bit since then.
Unnecessary breach of Green Belt when better location at North Haugh available
What is the point of having a Green Belt if the first people to plan to build on it, and within just 6
months of its creation, are the Council' Why not consider compulsory purchase as a way of creating
a viable non Green Belt option' Although this route might take some time, much of the preparatory
work has effectively already been done thanks to the careful consideration of existing sites.
Furthermore, it might be quicker than breaking the Green Belt at Pipeland at the latter is bound to
take a lot of time as there will be major objections.
Hurry up & get on with it. It's been dragging on way too long now. It's not fair on the children not
knowing!!
Ideal site would be on west of town near campus - keeping all buses out of main town
NEW SITE FOR MADRAS SHOULD BE NORTH HAUGH SO THAT BUSSING OG 60% OF PUPILS
IS KEPT TO WEST OF STANDREWS AND OUT OF CENTRE OF ST ANDREWS KEEP GREEN
BELT AS GREEN BELT
I would like to know how long it will take to build a new school because usually big projects like this
take longer than planned.
Please, just crack on and do this. The pipeland option is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of
people and the fact that politicians of all colours are using our childrens' education as a political
football is simply a disgrace.
I think it has gone on for too long now and that a decision has to be made ASAP. Pipelands does
seem the best option so lets stop wasting time and start building the school that our children and
future generations deserve.
Yes. Please ensure that cycle paths are provided to allow pupils to got to school by bike. The cycle
path should be totally protected from adjacent roads.
Pipeland is designated a greenfield site and building a school here could open the door to further
building. It is also situated close to the local community hospital. Traffic congestion could also be a
major problem.
Although a new build at Pipeland is preferable to refurbishing Kilrymont, the congestion from buses
and cars would be dreadful, quite apart from the impact on the hospital. The North Haugh / Pond
sites would remove all the extra traffic from passing through the town, would allow plenty of space
for a school to be built to allow for expansion if necessary in the future, would not contradict green
belts arrangements, would allow the sports fields to be easily accessed, and perhaps facilitate the
sharing of university facilities for older pupils.
THIS PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY GOING NOWHERE WITH CLAIMS AND CONUNTERCLAIMS
ON THE SEVERAL POSSIBLE SITES. IT REQUIRES AN EMINENT PROFESSIONAL ARBITER
TO EVALUATE THE CARIOUS ISSES, WHOSE DECISION MUST BE FINAL. THE ISSUE OF AN
APPROPRIATE FUTURE USE FOR THE HISTORIC SOUTH ST SITE IS BEING LOST
GREEN BELT VIOLATION SHOULD AWAIT SUPREME COURT RULING. RETURN TO DRAWING
BOARD. RESURRECT 2 SCHOOL SCENARIOS. REMEDY GENERAL DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT.
CLARIFICATION OF FUTURE OF LEUCHARS MIGHT HAVE CRITICAL IMPLICATIONSFOR
DEMOGRAPHICS
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PROGRESSIVE RUINATION BY FIFE COUNCIL OF A BEAUTIFUL
CITY
NO NEED TO BUILD ON DESIGNATED GREENBELT
POND SITE PROBABLY BEST OPTION. SPORTS FACILITIES CLOSE AT HAND. LESS TRAFFIC
THROUGH THE TOWN.
PIPELAND WOULD BE PREFARABLE TO KILRYMONT BUT THE POD SITE IS EASILY THE
BEST OPTION. FAR LESS TRAFFIC THROUGH THE TOWN BOTH FOR
COLLECTING/DELIVERING PUPILS AND FOR ACCESSING SPORTS FIELDS OVER THE ROAD.
GREEN BELT SHOULD BE PROTECTED
Bad omen if we breach greenbelt regulations within weeks of achieving approval. wrong site for bus
access have to travel through town centre. If other sites are ruled out should we not consider
Guardbridge - land available there, closer to taybridgehead where 50% of pupils live.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
That area has just been made greenbelt and should remain greenbelt. There are other suitable sites.
It would be very bad to have a building with a lot of noise next to the hospital. It would seem a large
number of buses going through town.
Since the bulk of travelling by bus, children is from the north, trundling to the south of the town to an
already very busy area is not wise. The school therefore should be to the north of standrews by its
present playing field.
must be on west side of town eg Guardbridge
Strong objection to building on newly designated greenbelt. threat of further housing development in
a greenbelt area Potential traffic problems
Build a school at Taybridgehead and renovate Madras College South Street. This would elevate the
bussing problem and significantly reduce recurrent spending. It would also show that the councils
serious about reducing CO2 levels
Standrews green belt has only been established and adopted. breaching this with such a large
building is contrary to the whole concept of a green belt .. Most of the school population comes from
the west side of town. It should be sited closer to existing playing fields
The pond area is the best option. there is not a drainage problem as has been stated. A swop of land
for the South St building is a good solution
The number of children in St Andrews in steadily reducing. The replacement should be where the
bulk of children are - Taybridgehead. The site is designated green belt 60% of pupils would need
bussed through the town from the other side. It is inappropriate to have a large school near a
hospital
The site is on a designated green belt Child numbers are reduced and there is a strong case for a
Tay Bridgehead school. It is inappropriate to have a school beside a hospital
Green belt land. The siting of a new school adjacent to the hospital will create considerable
congestion and disruption for parents, staff & visitors. In view of the lunchtime litter at present the
hospital car park will be worse
Green belt land. Too near to the new hospital. Dangerous road crossing. Traffic congestion locally
and through ST Andrews. If sports pitches are built floodlights would affect the hospital & local
houses.
The North Haugh seems a far better site , not in greenbelt, accessible from North, close to sports
grounds, car park capacity, well away from the hospital
My preference would have been west end of ST Andrews but the attitude taken by the university
suggests that such approach would delay the new school for many more years. We cannot deprive
our children for that time.
Concerned about planning objections. Much better than Kilrymont
The toilets
The green belt was put in place to stop the outward sprawl of ST Andrews. It would be wrong to build
a big school on green belt land. The site is on the wrong side of St Andrews, near a very busy road
and hospital
I am strongly opposed to Madras being built on greenbelt land. The council promised to preserve ST
Andrews Green Belt and to break their promise is totally despicable.
The site is designated greenbelt why would council go back on local plan policy. 60% of pupils would
be bussed through town causing congestion. The North haugh site would not cause these problems.
Far too much public money and time being wasted on policy negotiations
Road access needs to be considered carefully so that peak periods do not affect hospital patient
parking.
Inappropriate siting Traffic congestion. Inconvience to ill people at hospital
St Andrews have fought hard for many years to establish an acceptable greenbelt. This proposal will
make inroads into this. Buses will still have to travel through St Andrews
Traffic still to go through the town. Site on newly designated Green belt. Pond site not fully
investigated. The straight swap between the South Street site and the Pond site would leave money
for drainage etc. Present proposal is the thin end of the wedge for the Green belt.
Violation of greenbelt in contradiction of Fife Council Policy. Traffic congestion through town and
close to hospital sets dangerous precedent. Better sites exist at North Haugh or indeed Kilrymont
through traffic issue would remain
Green belt Traffic congestion caused by buses travelling through St Andrews
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Bad to use greenbelt Traffic a problem
No need to build on greenbelt bad idea to put school next to hospital Too much traffic through the
town, large number of buses No good reason for choosing this site There is available a suitable site
on westside of town
Pipeland is wrong side of townwhy bus over half of the pupils through town when there is a more
suitable site - which is also nearer sports facilities Site is on green belt Totally unsuitable ' next to
hospital', ie noise, traffic and evening disruptions
The school should not be built on a green belt. Next to a community hospital including palative care
Disruption to traffic bussing pupils through St Andrews
The pond site is unsuitable as potential flooding The greenbelt , the hospital has been built there.
The playing fields at the pipeland site in a way keeps the area greenbelt! The school buses will have
their own road. Kilrymont school could become a public amenity, halls & rooms.
Pipeland is designated greenbelt highly visible from the centre of town. West side of the town would
be logistically preferable for buses and pupils.
Do not wish to see buildings on what is greenbelt land
Not suitable so close to the hospital, nosy where there are terminally ill patients. Enough traffic
congestion at the moment without all the buses coming to the school again through the streets
Too visually intrusive Kilrymont site preferable
This proposal contradicts with the local plan and is a threat to the integrity of the towns greenbelt.
Also unsatisfactory in being a potential generator of excessive traffic through town centre. I am
concerned with any development which would have adverse effect on important town
The obvious choice is the pond site with no bussing of pupils through the heart of St Andrews. Build
on a greenbelt site - nonsense! Totally flawed and short sighted decision
Most of the pupils outwith the town come in on transport from the NORTH. SO all the buses would
still be going through the town, which seems totally ludicrous. The northern edge of the town is the
best site. To build at pipelands a bypass would be needed
Not acceptable on green belt land
It is important to maintain a green belt area to protect the environment around St Andrews and
indeed the town itself
The green belt area is next to the hospital and noise and traffic not acceptable. Bussing would still be
required through town adding to further traffic chaos The school would be used during evenings
resulting with more noise from cars etc
The site is on a newly designated green belt. Too close to the hospital with pallative care wards.
Extra traffic, noise etc Approx 1500 pupils in and out of morrisons, xtra traffic and sorts fields with all
hours lights and noise- No - definately No
The proposers should think long-term. Newport and Tayport pupil numbers will only rise and
therefore think ten years into the future; would it not be more efficient (transport cost, human cost) to
have a small Madras duplicate in Newport. The school in st Andrews could remain where it is
updated by putting the children to Kilrymont during the build. A small school, or two, are easier to
manage, less unruliness, more cohesion. Putting a new school beside the hospital does not solve
the transport problem which is causing havoc to the town twice a day and also to the 30miles or so
each child has to travel. It it illogical and inefficient to continue this journey cost.
Lunch hall and toilets
Main basis of my objection is the bussing of pupils (who mainly come from west of st andrews)
through the town and the inappropriate proposed location on green belt next to the hospital &
morrisons
New development should be on outskirts of town preferably on the west side
Proposed siting incompatible with green belt decision. The green belt recommendation should be
adhered to Access to Pipeland sire more complex than would be case at 'pond' site/North haugh/
bus traffic More congestion
Having it close to the hospital is daft. Moreover it would ruin the hard found green belt
This is a ludicrous proposal to a problem that has been going on for years. Pipeland is the worst
possible site to choose with 60% of pupils coming from outside the area and 1000 houses to be built
to the west of St. Andrews. Fife council had agreed to the local plan [5th October 2012] that Pipeland
should be part of the green belt. As far as this Council is concerned agreements do not count !
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
The site is totally unsuitable the so-called 'pond site' is the obvious and only choice!
It is a crazy proposal as the site has only just been clarified as green belt. Far better to build a school
at the Tay Bridgehead then upgrade a smaller Madras and South st site which was specifically given
to the town for this purpose
My concerns are 1. choice of site - on high ground - would set precedent. 2. Very poor access. 3.
road safety issues re. large numbers of children at busy road junction. 4. emergency vehicle issues
for both hospital and ambulance depot.
In my opinion the split site is the single biggest barrier to the raising of attainment and achievement
for the pupils of Madras College.
Why trail all this heavy traffic through St Andrews? Does this put our newly won Green Belt at risk?
Once breached, why stop these? What would happen to the present Madras playing fields, not more
house there, i hope.
Other sit is on newly designated Green Belt Adopted Local Plan - 05102 - the green belt was
accepted by Fife Council in their Local Plan Policy. Building the school on the Green Belt site at
Pipeland could open the door to further housing development in this area.
Additional funding should be sought to include a small training swimming pool, as at Kilrymont. 2. It
has not been made clear on the website that this is a consultation on the educational merits of the
Pipeland site; some may wish to say 'yes' educationally but 'no' in planning terms.
This is a green belt site. I 7 years or so spent in achieving this once invaded developer will fieel free
to build anywhere and will probably gain permission.
Only if the pond site in the North Haugh is found to be unsuitable.
Having fought so long for a designated green belt it should not be further diminished by building the
school there if there is a possible site elsewhere (the pond site). 2. A big plus for the pond is that
buses would not have to go through the town. 3. Planning may be quieter.
Please refer to the ST Andrews Preservation Trust letter which has been sent to members. I agree
with all of their reasons for rejection of the Pipeland Site as the Madras College replacement.
Why build a school on land that is meant to remain clear for the use of nature and for asthetic
reasons when there is a perfectly good site near North Haugh. Furthermore, the traffic is bad enough
on the Largo Road and round Morrisons without the need to make it worse. I am registered blind and
frequently use the crossing from the Morrisons pedestrian entrance over the road to the hospital. To
have yet more traffic - and often inconsiderate pupils - using the crossing will make my journey there
more difficult. I would very much prefer the school to be built on the other extremities of the town and
believe there are many who share my views.
North Haugh location preferable: reduced town traffic, close to sports site, possibility of swap of
south street site with university land,. Pipeland site would be on green belt land
I do not care where the new school is built, but do not want a refurb of kilrymont.
The land would need to be purchased and is partly on a Green Field site, when there is another site
at the North Haugh which provides easier access for the majority of pupils, who do come in from that
end of town. It is also next to the Schools Playing Fields and the University Science Depts. The
North Haugh site could be acquired in an exchange deal, with the University for Madras, South
Street. Large numbers of buses would need to travel right through the town, from one end to the
other, to get to this site. The roads to be used are already congested or convoluted for normal traffic.
There is also the Fire Station on one of the roads, Largo Road, which needs exit roads. There is the
possibility that a Hotel and a Supermarket is going to be built on the old Abattoir at Largo Road, also
bringing traffic to this area.
I do not think the school should be built on a green belt site. Green belt should remain that way as
stated in the St Andrews Plan. What is the point of having green belt if you can build on it!! I think the
school should be built on the playing fields at the Kilrymont site or at the pond site where the buses
would not need to come through St Andrews. There is already traffic congestion at the hospital and
having a school next door would only add to this. More children would troop to Morrisons for lunch.
The children would have to walk through the hospital site where there are ambulances and other
emergency vehicles.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
It would be a blot on the landscape if the school was built at Pipeland. It would entirely change the
skyline of the green belt boundary. Access roads would be unable to cope with extra traffic. What
height would the school be compared to Morrisons and the Community hospital' What sort of
boundary fence would be around the perimeter of the school, as I do not want to look out of my
window at a 6 ft fence. Finally as to light pollution will school lights be left on all night'
(1) The proposal is couched in physical terms only, as if a modern building and the listed specific
facilities would of themselves ensure good education; leadership, dedicated staff and a shared belief
in what the pupils can achieve are all more significant. A building needs to ensure that the ethos of
the school can develop, through space for communal activities including eating together, and it is not
clear that food can be provided on the premises or that the hall would be large enough to allow this;
smaller schools than the apparently envisaged 1500 pupils have an advantage in achieving social
cohesion. (2) The proposal does not remove the need to bus in more than half the school's pupils
from outwith St Andrews, and the time and energy taken in commuting is hardly conducive to
learning. (3) Siting the school to the south of St Andrews instead of the west increases both the
commute from the north and the distance to be travelled, including by residents given the planned
westward expansion of the town, within St Andrews. (4) The site chosen will need a road to be
developed into it large enough for the bus arrangements described, and most conveniently from the
road giving access to the Community Hospital, which is comparable in size to Scooniehill/Kilrymont
roads, and such a road could lead to the southward development of the town becoming irresistible
on appeal, contrary to the recently adopted Local Plan. (5) Neither community use nor linkages with
St Andrews University or the former Elmwood College depend on any particular site for Madras
College, so cannot be regarded as relevant to approving or otherwise the Pipeland proposal.
The "Pond Site" by the North Haugh is the only logical location for a new school site.
location at wrong side of town for bussed pupils. poor building location on sloping wet hillside of
boulder clay with well know problems of flooding of house on scooniehill road
Move quickly
I think that this is the best of the four proposals so far mooted. The "set of principles" which I
received today in the post are excellent, but the comments on them are biased in the extreme. The
building will be built to modern energy saving design. The location on what is currently designated
green belt will have negligible effect on CO2 emissions. Where the figure of 1000 tons of C02 comes
from I do not know, anyway I'd rather it was there, rather than in the centre of town with the engines
running. The Pond site is a swamp and will give rise to all sorts of expensive problems in the future,
especially if the current wet weather becomes entrenched. The location, next to the hospital and
Morrisons means that the town centre will not be inundated with hungry schoolchildren at
lunchtimes; children with medical and dental appointments (a spurious argument) will be nearer such
facilities. There are already buses which run to the health centre, they could easily go the "extra
mile" to the school. Failing this site, the best option would be Taybridgehead. Having said all this I
am no really qualified to comment since I have no children liable to go to the new school, nor am I a
teacher. These are the groups whose comments should be most heavily weighted.
It will benefit the pupils and staff to be on a single site. The Pipelands site looks large enough to
accommodate everything needed. It is accessible for pupils in St Andrews by bike and on foot as
well as by bus. It is such a wonderful chance for a new school. I strongly support this proposal as we
need to have ambition for the children in our catchment area.
A new school is long overdue. It's not the perfect site as it doesn't exist in the St. Andrews area, so
let's at last get building and give our kids what they deserve!
There is a need to get the new school built as soon as possible. It has taken too long already.
I think that this is matter is now urgent and has to be agreed ASAP and get on with building the
school at Pipelands so all children can benefit from this
If we can build a Community Hospital in this area we can build a Community School. It is incredible
that groups such as the Preservation Trust may oppose this urgently needed investment in the
education of N.E. Fife children.
18 buses are going to trundle 4 times per day through an already very busy area. As an ordinary
member of the public, I object strongly to this. It is totally against the Scottish Government's plans for
reducing carbon emissions. Fife council have dithered so long over this decision about Madras that
they and the pupils' parents are now grasping at straws in desperation to convince us and
themselves that Pipeland is the site. It is not. The new school should have been allotted to Newport
and South Street refurbished. If transportation of pupils in such large numbers is to continue, these
buses should be kept out of town and a site on the Guardbridge road decided on. Fife Council
forgets that we are all affected by the location of a new school and its attendant nuisances-- noise,
litter etc.The roads in Fife and in particular around St. Andrews are more potholes than road-- 4 daily
trips by 18 buses obviously make matters worse. It has taken Fife council a heckoff a long time to
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
work out that educational opportunities are most important for the current pupils and for the future.
Another few months will make no difference now-investigate properly another site to the west of
town. Let commonsense prevail. We ALL have to live with this decision for a very long time.
Although disappointed that a site on the western approaches could not be found, I wish to state that I
fully support a new single site school to be built at Pipeland as soon as possible. Its what the
children of North East Fife deserve.
The majority of non StAndrews pupils are from the North side of StAndrews so Pipeland is the wrong
side of town & Brownfield sites should be the first option.
Why is this taking so long. We need strong leadership to press ahead. We need then new site for
Madras College to be at the Pipeland road site. Please can we just proceed. Stop wasting time.
Pond site is the only logical position
The Pipeland site breaches the Green Belt and will create traffic congestion through the town and
around the hospital. Further and fuller consideration should be given to the so-called "pond" site at
the North Haugh.
SEPA should ensure that the systems for waste and rain water have sufficient capacity to cope with
the addition of a new school at the Pipeland site. ie. the large rainfall catchment area posed by the
buildings, car park, playground, etc.
The school should be built either at taybridge head, Guardbridge or on the Guardbridge road
entrance to St andrews, Its incredulous its even being contemplated to be built next to a hospital or
in st andrews at all, There are few pupils actually from st andrews the majority live more than nine
miles from the town, lots of buses travelling through the town for no apparent reason and using the
hospital approach road, i see a tragedy waiting to happen
I attended the public meeting, and not one single educational reason was advanced specific to the
Pipeland site. The arguments were all in favour of a single site. The officials and school
representatives present acknowledged privately that Pipeland was not the best option - rather the
only one that the Council would allow to be considered. It is thoroughly iniquitous to describe this as
a 'consultation'. This puts opponents of Pipeland in the invidious position of appearing to oppose a
single-site. This is unfair. The only reason we are considering Pipeland (described as sub-optimum
less than a year ago) is because the Council will not take on the powerful vested interests opposing
the best solution, a school on the western approaches. The town will therefore pay the price for
political cowardice. Because the Pipeland solution will not be quick or simple. The site is not secure,
with a public right of way through the middle. The area already suffers from persistent drainage
problems, and the sports pitches may well be unusable for much of the winter. It is in the green belt.
This is a panic reaction to previous failure, and like all such reactions, will end badly.
The children need a new school to have a quality education. This is the best site to combine all
facilities in one place and also have then not in centre of town
I believe that we have waited long enough already and that too many local children have already
been educated in substandard conditions. St Andrews is a unique place to live but as a community
there are too many groups of 'opinionated people' fighting for their own causes and sadly ignoring
the well being of our children. Two of my children have missed out on this fantastic opportunity
please don't let it happen to my third child. We need to stand together as a community and welcome
the proposal we are being offered, If Pipeland was considered a suitable site for a Community
Hospital then I believe it is also a suitable area for our new school. We need to move forwards and
stop raking over old ground.
I support the redevelopment of the existing Kilrymont Road site.
as a ex pupil and resident in this area to put the school here would put a strain on the bus and roads.
Even when l was at kilrymont school and found it difficult to get there or to station park the bus
service has not improved from when l was at school you are not telling me stage coach will provide a
better service thy have not done so to date and that is in twenty years.
this is prime agricultural land and green belt and must be protected as such for the good of present
and future generations to enjoy
Just DO it .
It is quite wrong to propose building on Green Belt land.
other sites not sufficiently explored
only one option is being given without fully investigating alternatives. Also it is green belt land
There are no alternative sites available and it is essential that the community has a school of quality
that meets the needs of pupils as quickly as possible.
I have always supported the option to refurbish/remodel Kilrymont (in fact when the primary schools
review took place I would have hoped that Fife Council would have used a few million to build a new
primary somewhere in/around the Town and then have included the old Langlands School site as
part of the High School campus and thus made more possible for a single site school on the KR site)
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
given that it was known then that a new secondary school was required). However, this opportunity
seems to be lost and so the next best thing, in my view, is to support the Pipeland site. However, I'm
not sure that the road to securing this site will be smooth and may well take a very long time, and
pupils will have to continue to suffer buildings which will see very little investment over the next few
years.
The education of young people must take priority over other issues.
It is pleasing to hear that at last common sense prevails and a single new build/site is now the
preferred option. Pipelands sounds like an excellent choice which, apart from the huge advantages
for the pupils, will also alleviate transport congestion in the town centre.
would have been cheaper and quicker to refurb Kilrymont. Who knows how long will have to wait
now
maintain the green belt status, if not; then consider building affordable housing as well as a new
school, to provide accommodation for our local young people. better still, build the school at north
haugh site, and use the pipeland road site exclusively for cheap housing.
The educational needs of children in NE Fife should take precedence over the green belt issues.
Educational needs are not currently being adequately met so the Council should move with all
possible speed to build the new school at Pipeland.
Bbuilding on recently designated green belt - 18 buses to go through town twice daily - proximity to
hospital - long commute for students from Tayside
Just get a school done. One fit for purpose and for the 21st century. The current facilities mean that
delivering the new CfE courses is not just difficult but impossible (research is a MAJOR part of them
and with only a few fully booked computer rooms in each building it can't be done). All this waiting
means that more and more pupils are being taught in facilities not fit for purpose. The assumsion
that as we are Madras (or in that rich St Andrews) that we must have good facilities is a fallacy that
has been shown time after time (ask the architects who have surveyed our buildings, or the HMIe's
last report). It is the kids that loose out, and its their futures we are playing with.
Completely wrong part of the town to be considering.
I have no doubt that the best sight for new build school would be on the pond sight on the western
side of ST Andrews
However, the previous proposal of the Kilrymont refurb is a much better deal for both pupils and
staff.
The previous proposal of Kilrymont refurb is a much better deal for both pupils and staff
The Pipeland site has recently been designated Green Belt, and now, within weeks of this decision,
you are wanting to build on it. 2. The long-term prospect of continuing to bus children across Fife is
unacceptable and other solutions should be sort, in their interests and for environmental reasons
The Education Directorate had already agreed in the lengthy consultation period of the local plan
where the school would be they now want to ride rough shod over that because they can not deliver
their earlier promises .Each time we hear from People in their middle management eg Mr Mclaughlin
stating this is the best site that is the best site personally you can not believe a word the dirocerate
tells the people of the town Egos seem to come into play
The Policy is flawed .The council have an enviromental policy that they play lip service too when it
suits them Environmental Policy " Fife Council is committed to minimizing the environmental impacts
of its activities and improving the local and global environment for the benefit of the communities it
serves. Members and Officers of the Council are committed to achieving the aims and principles of
this Policy, which will ensure that the Environment in Fife will be protected and enhanced now and
for generations to come. "' FIFE COUNCIL The long term cost of busing children in to St andrews
should be looked at in the same priincipals as the overall build cost along with the damage done to
the enviroment. There should be a much smaller school built or redevelopment of one of the two
existing sites and a seperate School at the Bridge Head .
North Haugh a better alternative. Transport and green belt issues with Pipeland site.
Not the best site for a school. Should pursue the North Haugh site before making any decisions.
Pipeland could be costly and have huge delays. Transport through St Andrews a problem.
Pond site ridiculous as its water table is about 10cms! Kilrymont no good as it would disrupt, be too
small and chaotic parking.
Pond site seems much preferable option beside playing fields and is a nearer locality for
taybridgehead area pupils. Pipeland site would add at least 3 hours per week in their travelling time.
Expanding Kilrymont is not a serious or feasible alternative.
I am strongly opposed to the development of this newly designated part of the green belt. I feel that
after the hospital, now the school it won't be long before it is accepted that large areas of the
southern hills will become housing. This will have extensive impact on the town in many ways. Whilst
i cannot comment on the advantages of a single school as opposed to a two school site i also feel
that as the majority of pupils come from the Tay Bridge area a site on the western approaches
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
should be sought. Bringing a vaste amount of traffic through the town should be avoided at all costs.
I think that the council will also face very stiff opposition to this proposal including the possibility of a
lengthy legal action to prevent the development. If the council truly wish the school to happen they
should consider this seriously.
Inappropriate use of Green Belt Poor access for buses will lead to serious traffic problems Children
will cross Healyh Centre land to get to fast food Too far for North Fife children to travel Pethyrum Car
Park would be perfect and would allow all children easy access with good traffic management and
close to playing fields and bus station
The Pipeland site has been identified as the preferred site providing the opportunity for a state of the
art six-year school with comprehensive outdoor sports facilities on a single site. No other site in St
Andrews gives this option.
Absolutely wrong site on wrong side of town. Within recently agreed green belt the breaching of
which can not be condoned.
very concerned about the increase in traffic to Largo Road given that there is a M & S outlet and
Premier Inn planned, Largo Road struggles to cope at the moment.
just get on with it and stop wasting time
Please can we just get on with this - our children have waited too long already
It is essential that a new school is built for some of the current and all of the future pupils of Madras
College to experience educational provision in an environment fit for purpose. Any and all efforts
should be made to ensure that this is done without any further delay
Please build a new school without delay.
Please build a new school that I will be able to go to when I am in first year (Aug 2017)
Essential that a new school with appropriate sports facilities on site is provided as soon as possible.
This site gives the best chance of that. Most suitable site in terms of being accessible but having
minimum impact on neighbourhood. We live close to the Kilrymont Road site and the impact of
school traffic in this residential area is considerable - even though it's only half the school here at
present. Taking the school out of such a congested residential area to the Pipeland farm site would
be a great improvement.
Preserve the Greenbelt, please, and avoid increasing traffic congestion though town!
Although not an ideal site for Taybridgehead students due to need to still travel through town I
support fully the Pipeland Madras site.
Kilrymont site not suitable. 1) Too small. 2) In the centre of a residential area and numerous school
buses travelling through residential streets. Not a good arrangement.
Because I like Madras the way it is but just make it a bit tidier and it's not what the school looks like
it's the Education that matters.
It doesn't really bother me being in a new school or not. I would like a new school but it doesn't
matter, The Education matters.
I think all the kids would like a swimming pool and good food.
I would like a swimming pool in Madras because it would make it better.
With 80% of pupils bussed in the new school should be in THEIR community, cutting transport costs
and pollution. A school at Tay Bridgehead would be fair for those pupils and a smaller (yet fulfilling
the educational needs) for the youth in St Andrews. Definately NOT IN GREEN BELT.
I don't want to be in it, I want to be with my best friend.
Would it have good cooking facilities such as a restaurant the the pupils could cook in and other
pupils could buy. I think this school would be a good idea and help Education.
Is there good access to the University Station Park.
Great place for the new school. I dont like waste so would have been happy with a rebuild at least
there would have been a swimming pool. I do feel sorry for the residents of schoonihill a boarded up
building is really depressing to look at but this does not effect parents that live out of St Andrews.
Needs a swimming pool.
Allowing any development on the newly-established Green Belt is extremely damaging: 1 In itself it
diminishes the valued landscape setting of the historic town; 2 It attracts further contempt and
distrust of the planning process by the people; 3 It opens the door to further commercial
development of the Green Belt: in view of 2 above, promises from planners and councillors that this
will not be allowed to happen are just unbelievable; 4. With more than 50% of the current roll of
students coming from the North (and demographic likelihood that this will increase both from the
Bridgehead and the Local Plan's housing development at Langlands) it is in the wrong part of town,
adding to traffic problems in the town and time wasted for hundreds of pupils; 5. It separates the
school from the existing playing fields and from the University.
Proper Toilets - not dirty and not a smell.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Does it supply you with pencils and rubbers.
Will it have good art facilities?
I think the PE halls and changing rooms should be nice and cleaned regularly.
I think it is a great idea.
I like the idea of it being really big and hygenic.
I like it, I want a nice clean school.
Well I think we should have a new school because it is like the school is made out of gum and it
needs a swimming pool.
I would be happy to go ahead with this plan. Me and some other pupils would like a swimming pool
though.
I thought it was good how the glass shone through.
Nice clean toilets a big swimming pool. Nice good.
I feel that this is a great proposal and I would love to have it constructed. My only problem is whether
I can't pick a couple of friends to be in my set, and that we won't have much time there.
I would like to have tables outside.
I would like a new school, with everyone's own locker. I would also like a place to meet up with
friends in the warm and the cold weather. I would also like a place for eating in big groups of friends
or small.
To make a swimming pool for exercise and nice clean toilet.
I would like it if they had the glass classrooms that were in the other proposal. I like the idea that it is
light.
While the area is not maybe considered ideal by some,I think it is by far and away the best site in the
immediate locality of St Andrews
I really want a swimming pool and nice clean toilets.
I liked the pictures of the new school. I would like a swimming pool.
What sports could we play.
I am looking forward to it.
Will there still be a swimming pool.
No I don't, all I want is a new school to refresh others.
I feel this is a great place to put the school and it will be a good use of space.
It will be nice. Will it have nice doors.
I hope it is cool. It sounds cool.
I hope it will be fun for everyone.
I'm looking forward to it.
I can't wait until I can go up.
I am looking forward for the school to be built.
I love it.
I am so happy.
It is a good use of space and is a good idea to bulid the new school.
I think that there should be a bigger bus stop.
I agree but not fully. I would like a clean school. It would look more attractive as well.
I think it will be a nicer school but we won't spend much time there. I would prefer to have more
people in my class in my set.
I think that it is important that the new Madras College has a large outdoor area, for the pupils to
explore.
I thought it was a good idea but would prefer more friends in my classes.
It would be a better environment and it would look more attractive.
I like the idea and think it is going to be much more space. I also like the idea that it will be made of
glass so it is light.
I think we should have the best technology to learn.
I would like to have a swimming pool because we would not really have any time to go swimming. I
would like to have clean toilets.
I would like to have a swimming pool because we would be able to do more swimming and practise.
I would like to have my own locker at Madras and have clean toilets.
I would really like a swimming pool.
I think there should be a pool.
I think it would be good to have a swimming pool.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I would like to have a swimming pool.
I think that we should have a swimming pool.
I think it would be better if the new school had a pool because you would never have the chance to
go swimming that often.
A big playground and clean toilets.
I think that they should have all sorts of languages eg. not only Mandarin or French but also Spanish
etc. I also think that a new school means a new start for not only the pupils but for teachers and the
school.
I think it would be nice if we build a new school because it may give us a better education and if we
have a better surrounding we may get more encouraged to do different things.
I think we should have toilets and I think we should have a swimming pool.
Because the other school is in a bad condition and I would like a swimming pool.
Years of indecision by all parties, nothing anyone has said will change this. Build secondary school
at Taybridgehead. Savings on bus budget, bring in fresh teaching practice and you should 'cut' traffic
through st andrews
Green belt land - too close to hospital - increased traffic through town - Too close to main road for
pupils coming and going- Extra hours of noisy lighting too close to hospital A more convienent site
has been proposed
Spoiling approach to ST Andrews Disturbance to hospital patients through building then traffic and
noise from school Where the majority of pupils live Cost to ratepayers of transporting the majority of
children
Inadequate assessment of 'pondsite' no site investigation. Use of international consultants with no
local knowledge to give estimated price of school on this location. if understanding that 'pond' was
artificially created. Concern re abuse of 'greenbelt' provisions and increased pressure on landscape
This site is not cutting the skyline as viewed from st andrews, west sands and gold courses and will
be obtrusive. There is ideal ground for playing fields. The pond site is environmentally unetenable
Is it Eco friendly
I am really looking forward to going to the new Madras
I am looking forward to see it.
Will you really get it built on time? If it's not built on time will we still have to go to Kilrymont.
I will be looking forward to it
Will it be nice and will there be no chewing gum under the tables
Buses would continue to travel through ST Andrews (I beleive 18 buses twice a day - 72 journeys.
How much destruction and at what cost to the town and environment. The school must be built the
west side of the town
Don't have linoleum doors! Good laptop
I'm looking forward to it.
I am really excited to go to the new school
Good idea
It will be nice
I'm looking forward to the new school
I think I'll love it
Do you think pupils learning will improve?
It might give us a better education and a cleaner school
I would like the pipeland school to have light spacious areas with comfy zones.
Quiet place.
I think the Pipeland site is a good idea.
I think it's a great idea
Preservation of the town is priority 18 buses in and out in the morning and afternoon - 72 journeys
Traffic through Bridge ST and Largo RD - unbearable. preservation preservation preservation
What would happen to the old building? They need at least 20 toilets.
The area should be part of green belt which should not be built on. Alternative site is available in
North Haugh. The site is too close to the hospital- traffic problems & evening class activities too
disturbing
I think it is a great place to have it.
I object to the proposal to build a school in the green belt. I am concerned by the impact of bussing
pupils through the town I favour the building of a separate new school near the Tay Bridge and do
not believe the option has been given adequate consideration
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Traffic congestion in St Andrews is bad enough at moment. Building the new madras on the west
side e.g. North Haugh area would be most sensible for buses etc. This would also avoid spoiling the
green belt.
That those who don't want to go out for lunch here somewhere to sit.
Great
The wait has been long enough. NE Fife community needs movement on this issue urgently.
Good idea.
Would you think the learning will improve.
I think it is a great idea
Best location let's get on with it
It's next to my grans and grandads.
Best of the available compromises
Pipeland is the best site available in St andrews. It can be delivered in the shortest timescale. Pleae
do not delay any further as I want my children to get the kind of school that meets their educational
requirements
Needs to be built asap! will be an asset to the area and for my children Better access, could build an
underground car park, cycle paths etc etc
Until the building of the kilrymont rd building the population of south st was 600. little congestion. The
Pipeland site would involve some 1400 pupils going into town The above site is on a hillside with
problems for playing fields Green belt site
Think there has been enough consultation now and building needs to go ahead quickly
Great to see such a suitable site - would greatly benefit children if could build here quickly
Build a school please, start soon. An ideal site, space etc. Where else would you build it.
Good site, building looks great.
To be bright and colourful
I'm in P7 and I'm wondering will I be able to learn and study there or will I be off to South Street
Comfy areas that we can relax in when we have spare time. Good classrooms to work in.
Will the school eventually get built and have good computers. Why can there not be computers.
I think it is a good idea
I think its a good idea for all the sports pitches but I want a good pitch for skateboarding and skating.
Brilliant Idea.
Good idea
I have been a St Andrews resident all my life and I strongly object to the school being built on a
green belt site. The school would completely change the skyline of St Andrews. The hospital is
already congested with traffic and there is a shortage of parking; this would only make matters
worse. The school should be built on the existing Kilrymont site or on the outskirts of town.
I wish to secure a modern secondary school campus with all the indoor and outdoor resources
required to underpin a decent 21st century education for my daughter and son (currently in P3 and
P1 resp. at Newport Primary School). I do not wish the second rate option of a 'face-lifted' Kilrymont
campus in the event that the Pipelands proposal is rejected.
Building on Greenbelt land should be seen as a necessity - this is not a Project for commercial or
individual profit for which objections could be understood and sympathised with
This is the wrong site and the school should be built on the West side of town. Planning will be an
issue and when FC tried the same idea in Leven, they failed to complete the project and lost three
years.
A new school build is vital for current and future Madras pupils.
I think its a good idea I like it
I would love a new school and I think it is a great ida for I think it is EPIC!
Go for it
Plenty of space, natural light, hygiene grass and concrete play ground
I think a new school would be brilliant. I really hope that it will be built. Pipeland seems like a great
place, I love how much space there is.
I love the idea.
Ideal your spoiling the country
I think it's a great idea
I think its waste of time and money. No stained glass windows! I think its a really bad idea.
I think this plan is going to work, preferably.
I think it is an ace idea
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I think you have very great ideas and good place to build it
Seems fine
But what would happen if some people don't like the ida and there are delays. And would we be put
in huts? And there must be an ice rink to play hockey on.
Because its fine
I think the ideas are great
Please make the school as light and bright as possible, just like the pictures of the new school you
showed us. Please as well try to make the school as eco friendly a possible.
green environment, colours every where, less lights, more windown, lots of equipment.
All weather sports track field. Using the Kilrymont swimming pool at the new school could use
Great idea. Handy for hospital and shops.
That the main reason for this proposal is to ensure that Madras pupils have an excellent place of
learning to take them into the next century and that this proposal is not politically motivated.
Its a good idea
It would be easier for everyone to be together
Awesome
clean, graffite proof walls, obstacle course, flat smooth concrete pitch, common room
Will we need to pay extra tax to pay for the new Madras? Why cant we just renovate the old Madras.
1green belt preservation 2traffic implications 3 poor reasoning for abandonment of other sites
As a parent in the Taybridgehead Area I think that Pipeland is situated on the wrong side of the town
for two thirds of its pupils who have by far the longest travel times. Public transport links are
relatively limited and increased car use would be inevitable.
I support this mainly because all other potential sites have either been ruled out for unavoidable
reasons or are worse than this one. It's not a perfect solution, but sadly this isn't a perfect world, and
this is certainly so many times better than renovating the current buildings. I only beg of you to
ensure the design is built as practically as possible, with consultations with staff and pupils to ensure
the best possible school to be built in this position. I also hope the school is being built to last unlike
the Kilrymont Road site was, else we'll just be experiencing these same issues and costs in 40 years
time.
I am an ex-pupil at Madras, and this calling for a new school started long before I was even in
attendance. But a new school is necessary for better education. The Kilrymont building is too small
for all years, and South Street has pupils taking lessons in 'huts' with walls that disintegrate at the
touch. Not to mention the poor teachers having to be ferried between schools, and experiencing a
stark contrast in behaviours at that. For a long time, the behaviour at the lower school has always
been quite shocking in some cases, but how can we blame them' These pupils have no older figures
to look up to, and the result is 14 year olds getting 'too big for their boots'. To have a school that
accommodates all 6 years would improve attitudes, education, as well as make easier the lives of
teachers and those who live in the Center of town. Both schools urgently need revamping and new
equipment, but if the solution of a new unified school brings in all these positives, the facts of the
opposers is this; If you oppose a new school, you oppose the right for better education for the
children of the future, you oppose change in behaviour of children, and you oppose teaching
standards to rise. To me, the only feasible solution is to build this new school, and as quickly as is
humanly possible.
I feel that Pipeland is a perfect site for a new Madras College and also the most affordable site under
consideration.
Road Safety for pupils and Secure Parking in the school for staff and visitors
Built on greenbelt that council agreed only last year! Increased travelling time. Increased carbon
omissions. Increased traffic in St Andrews. Clearly a 2nd best option without fully exploring the pond
site, including no serious negotiations with Universities. Also, where is the evidence on the so called
high cost of pond site'
The proposed plans for renovation of Kilrymont Road make more sense than to gouge out a hillside
and build on green field. Where is Fife Council's 'think green' policy' I am vehemently opposed to
Pipelands or other mooted sites. Kilrymont Road is a purposely built school and once renovated an
ideal place for the new Madras.
I urge the council to consider that the new Madras College will be serving the greater community of
Northeast Fife, and does not need to justify itself to the Preservation Trust of St Andrews. St
Andrews is the historical place for the secondary school for this area (unfortunately, because there
seems to be a lot of opposition from the town for the building of a decent school), and currently
Pipelands is the BEST OPTION for the new, desperately needed school. PLEASE HURRY UP AND
BUILD IT.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I think they should build it at pipe lands because it is a good site and they should start building it right
away!
We need this new school now, children have waited to long.I would definitely consider moving from
this area if we cant get a new school premises that my kids require to develop.
Something has to be done and quickly!
Is anyone considering the children here ' as far as I can see certain councillers and so called
conservation groups ,who probably have no children of school age are blocking the advancement of
education. The pipeland site has the space required and its contained in one area it makes sense to
build there
I think that the council should just get on with building a new school which is very much needed. No
proposal will ever please everyone and the pupils continue to miss out.
It is important that the Council involves colleagues with experience in providing for Community based
activities rather than just listening to Educationalists. I have experience of this in another Local
Authority, where this was not always the case and when the facilities were built they were not
practice for Community Use, Please don't make the same mistake'
1. Wrong part of town for daily travelling, 2. Green Belt site - not permissable, 3. Better site for
school on west side on town has not been properly assessed.
I have concerns relating to the proposed site: the visual impact to the landscape and historic
character of the St Andrews skyline of building and aggressive lighting, transportation issues
resulting from the large numbers being bussed in from the opposite end of St Andrews, rights of way,
drainage, the irretrievable loss of green belt land when there are other alternatives and the extent of
land which would be affected.
The northfacing hillside location will be particularly problematic for sports pitches. Drainage and field
runoff is extreme and combined with the orientation of the site winter field sports will undoubtedly be
compromised. In addition, current sewerage and water pressure is inadequate (the hospital regularly
has to have pumps to resolve sewer flow back, and the Steading housing has had ongoing problems
with water pressure which Scottish Water has not been able to resolve). In addition, the fields at
least contain temporarily field run off - which otherwise will pour into Scooniehill Road. So:
unplayable sports pitches, inadequate water supply and drainage, make this a flawed site.
It is on the wrong side of town
Just like Kilrymont, gbuilt up area on the other side of St Andsrews from the Taybirdigehead area both a nightmare to get through the traffic to.
I think this is a good site, and it is time to get on with building a long overdue new school. The
council has done due diligence on trying unsuccessfully to locate a viable site on the west of town,
so this is our only option now. I strongly support it.
Pond site preferable because; It's nearer majority of pupils, cycling option from Leuchars/Guardbrige.
Avoids buses through town, and with service bus option.. NOT A GREENBELT SITE! Already
specifically zoned in The Council's adopted local plan. Endorsed by Scottish government. Therefore
less time restrictions. Extensive sports facilities nearby at Station park, and the possibility of
educational linkage with University. The University may also buy the redundant buildings at South
Street, with benefits to both party's, and saving tax payers a lot of money! The Pipeland site is
already congested, pupils milling around a supermarket and Community Hospital not ideal. My only
hope is that at some point soon we will have the school this area has been badly needing for a long
time. Please let it be before this generation of parents give up with the shear incompetence of the
council!!
I have read a recent paper (campaign for a new Madras fit for 21st century). This debate has now
gone on for years and the endless delays are affecting the future of hundreds of pupils. We need a
new school very soon as the existing facilities are worn out.The arguments in favour of the Pond Site
(North Haugh) are strong. It is unfair to expect the bridgehead pupils to travel further than absolutely
necessary. They already have a long enough journey. All the buses would have to cross the middle
of the town at a busy time to get to the Pipelands site . This is not sensible for many perfectly
obvious reasons. The arguments are all outlined in the aforementioned paper and are compelling
and all of them need to be addressed. Yours sincerely, Victoria Riley
The encroachment on green belt land would be a dangerous precedent and undesirable in itself. A
large building there would adversly effect the landscape setting of the town Proximity to the hospital
I think theres no need making a new Madras college. They can make a school for people who don't
have a school
We should have stained glass windows
I thnk pipeland is the wrong site, too small, there are other options It is a green belt and so should be
kept that way. I would be surprised if anyone from Fife Council lives in St Andrews so really have no
interest as to where they build it
A greenbelt should be just that. It is stupid to build on the side of a hill The traffic congestion will be
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
dreadful
Inappropriate site due to increase in traffic through town to access. Site already designated as 'green
belt' for very good reasons. Too close to hospital with its necessary increase in traffic and its
pallative care unit
Green belt means the future of the land has been settled once and for all. it should not be possible to
chop and change whenever something else comes along. TAT least it is an empty pretence that
sounds good and deludes the citizens into thinking that green belt land is safeguarded for the future
With a child at Madras and one going in the future I would love to be able to support this -but my
conscience won't let me. I was very disappointed that (deliberately') at the pre-consultation meetings
no credible alternatives were presented -this was a foregone conclusion. It was designated green
belt for a reason. I would also suggest that should this be passed that the council should pay no
more for the land than its value as agricultural land (around a tenth of £1.8M, I believe) as this would
(should) not be available for any other type of development.
I am happy with the two schools and I think we should have seperate schools and be with our age
groups
Pipelands is not a place to build a large school it is in a green belt area and access for buses is very
conjested. The building should be in a position where there is good access for school buses, - the
north haugh area. It is obvious the school would be on one site and away from busy town
Being a member of the wise mature age when I have a stay in hospital, calm open space, greenery,
skies to watch just to relax and dream. Trying to stop St Andrews disappearing into the fog of
development
There has now been a very long delay in regard to the building of a new College. This is causing a
great deal of concern amongst the parents of children currently at the school and those who are due
to go there. Further delays can no longer be tolerated, a decision must be made.
The site has been adapted as green belt Establishing a school on the site would create a precedent
for further development Large buildings would dominate the hillside setting. North Hugh would be a
more suitable site
The bussing of 60% of Madras College to reach the proposed pipeland site would continue to cause
disruption for traffic wher as if located on the north haugh this problem would be greatly reduced.
The playing fields would be adjacent to this school on north Hugh
It needs to be done quickly, we have waited long enough.
I give it my support despite serious reservations about this site when compared with the two
alternatives that appear to have been discounted, namely (i) a new school near Newport plus an
upgrade of South Street and (ii) a new school on university land beside the Guardbridge Road.
Either of these alternatives is by far a better site, for all the many reasons that have been well
publicised. I mention two, both transport. Firstly the complete absence of school buses in the town
and secondly , for (ii) the frequency of alternative transport to the school
The arguments against the Pipelands site are many and I agree that this option should not be
pursued. The pond site ticks most of the boxes and this is the proposal that the council should follow.
I understand that there may be some problems with alleged boggy ground and foundations but with
modern building techniques such problems are easily overcome. The "foundations problem" is a
short term issue which can be readily overcome. The Council should move forward on the adoption
of this site with speed before delays start to impact on the education of the pupils of N E Fife. There
should be no further delays, too much time has been lost already. Yours sincerely, John Riley.
It is a green belt area. Use the kilrymont site.
What is the point of an area being designated green belt if it can be built on because it suits the
councils purpose
Green belt should remain green belt the site at the North haugh is available school buses to this site
wouldnt have to go through the town so traffic congestion and pollution would be minimised
The proposed site is on a designated green belt. The buildings would be extremely prominent and
ruin the landscape setting of standrews greatly affecting the dramatic view of the town approaching
from the south
No to pipelands because Noise of school, buses and playing fields very close to hospital. Bussing
through town along busy roads. Pipelands is newly designated green belt only to built on for
educational purposes if no other appropriate site available Please consider seriously the North
Haugh site
Respect for Green Belt plan recently adopted Educational disadvantages for bussing people
Inappropriate site from transport point of view North Haugh site arrangements with University should
be pusued
I think the green belt status on this elevated side of town should be protected. A school will be visible
as will future development by Muir (who are ultimately pursuing this goal)
But there’s no point putting a cafeteria
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Pipeland is a green belt site. Wrong side of town for 60% of pupils To near to hospital, dangerous
crossing to supermarket (Morrisons) Even more light pollution created at the edge of town
The Green belt - if it is to remain at green belt and transport from the Bridgehead. I am still unsure
why the idea of a Bridgehead school is unavailable
I think the school should be built as two parts a refurbishment at Madras College and one at
Taybridgehead. This would reduce long journeys, and retain as a school one of st andrews more
important listed buildings. The South st building is iconic. should not be sold of or passed to the
university.
Proposed site is within newly designated green belt. site is inappropriately adjacent to the hospital.
Site is slopey and would be costly to develop Huge increase in vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the
area. Do not wish further deterioration in the quality of life in the town
I think a school in the Taybridge head area should be considered. Especially since the majority of
children come from this area. It seems ludicrous to bus the majority of pupils to St Andrews.
1/ Out of The St. Andrews Flood area 2/ On the outskirts of the town 3/ Takes the youngsters out of
the town centre - especially mid-day. 4/ Site big enough for fully integrated educational/youth
development facility.
If it is built with imagination and environmental sensitivity, then it could be a great asset to St
Andrews. Needs to use solar panels like many of the German schools. Whoever supports the pond
site is living on a different planet as the whole surrounding area during the last heavy rains was very
badly flooded and talk of children being able to cycle to school is complete nonsense as it is
impossible to cycle through such a flooded area. I often cycle around that area and even in Summer
it is really bad so it is not a question of just draining the area for the school, it would involve much
further drainage in the surrounding area to allow the children to get to school with reasonably dry
feet! I ask those supporting this site to walk there from St Andrews after the next bad flooding and
then see if they are still keen on the idea. From where I live at the west end, the most direct route to
there would be through the path from Strathkinness High Road but this would mean arriving covered
in mud whereas I regularly cycle to the hospital and it is very easy (10 minutes clean cycle).
I would like to know exactly (a) why the proposal for a school at the Tay Bridge Head has been
discarded, and (b) why the original proposal for the Langlands site fell through.
Only if this represents the quickest way to get the school built, ie that any planning obstacles can be
dealt with in a reasonable time ie weeks not months
It would be helpful to families in Newport & Tayport if better transport links were available direct to
the new school for children who have appointments to attend or for those who miss the school bus! it
isn't fair to expect parents to drive them through so most kids end up missing a whole day.
It is good that it is near Morrisons, because at Kilrymont we spend literally the whole of our lunch
hour walking there and back. Cafeteria food literally inedible, but it's good to be able to go out for
lunch so I can deal with that.
Pipeland is on the wrong side of St Andrews, with over 60% of the pupils driven in from the
Taybridgehead area by bus, this is costly, an environmental issue, elongates the pupils day unfairly
and I feel a safety risk. By all means build a new school in St Andrews but a school at
Taybridgehead is necessary for the long term, if all the staff from Madras were split between the
above two sites, its a win win for everyone and no long, costly and environmentally negative bus
runs morning and night!
A single school in the region of the 'pond site' would eliminate all school buses travelling twice a day
and ease the congestion in Bell st, South St, Market st at school lunch break The adjacent playing
fields would be appreciated for all sports
The green belt should not be infringed. The best plan would be to refurbish the two existing buildings
to high standard. The spolit site is not a major problem. Excellent schools in Edinburgh function
perfectly well with distances far greater than those between South St and Kilrymont
I am worried about the proximity to the hospital and traffic pollution and the noise and would hope
that this would be a prioritry at the planning stage
Having waited many years for a Green Belt around St Andrews it is not acceptable to have this
breached within months of it being granted the only logical site is the pond site on the correct side of
st andrews in regard to bussing of pupils is next to playing field and near University facilities
Can you take technology
Can you bring an ipad or phone to school Can you bring the Xbox60
I would like a BMX bike and a please to ride it.
Poor choice of site means bussing North Fife children through town. Too close to hospital - pupils
will cross hospital to visit morrisons. Please try to build on site of guardbridge paper mill
We have not been given sufficient information about how the Council arrived at the Pipeland sight. I
feel the situation is similar to the time when the Council tried to railroad the community into accepting
refurbishment of Kilrymont as the only option a year or so ago. The same unexplained sense of
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
absolution from the Council seems to exist here!
Provide effective, efficient and progression educational provisions on a single site.
It is a good idea becauseI think the schools in St Andrews right now are falling down
It would be cool
It would be very cool
I really think it's time now to get one with it and get the kids a new school. I was hoping my eldest
daughter would benefit but now it looks like my youngest might not even get there.
Children would still have to be bused through St Andrews. The new school would not have a
swimming pool. The site in question is on a hill with drainage problems. Also I do not think building
should be allowed on a green belt site.
Pipeland Farm has a right of way, that is used by hundreds of dog walkers each week. This would go
through the middle of the school grounds. Vehicular access is required to the Waterman's Cottage.
This again goes though the middle of the school grounds. Also building should not be allowed on the
green belt.
I do not think the site would be right for a secondary school. There is already traffic congestion at the
hospital without school traffic. Buses would still have to travel though town. The school should either
be built on the West side of town or on the existing Kilrymont site. Also, I feel strongly that the school
should not be built on the green belt.
I think this school should be built on the west side of ST Andrews and that is the area proposed for
further expansion of housing Very unwise to break into Green belt Medieval buildings and town
centre need to be preserved & traffic reduced not increased Supportive of single site school
SInce most of the out of town pupils live on the western side of the town the same objections to the
location obtains as to the Kilrymont Road site. Most buses will have to go through the town.
Passionately wants the school to be as near to the edge of the town
Pipeland site would mean traffic running all through the town Too close to the hospital which needs
peace and quiet and has traffic congestion already. SIte the new Madras on the north haugh next to
the university & it's amenities . Easy access for both local pupils and those coming in by bus.
Pipeland is on the wrong side of ST Andrews It is in green belt
I think that it isn't a good idea
I think this is the only feasible site and that the children deserve a new school as soon as possible.
How will you be able to pay for this if goes over budget.
I think this new school is not a good idea.
I don't think I'll be satisfied. I'd love to come but I moving to USA June 2013. I want there to be more
nature than buildings.
I don't think it's ideal site - but the standard of accommodation currently is appalling for 21st century
teaching. The children need - and deserve - a new school with up-to-date facilities now. This process
has been going on far too long and it is the children, and their education, which is suffering.
The proposed site has major problems which will need to be resolved: contours - it is a steep hillside
requiring extensive earthmoving and prominence of a very big building behind the town; drainage the land around the site has very poor surface drainage and there is a natural spring which runs
across the site; right of way across site; vehicular access to a house - waterman's cottage- across
the site; subterranean reservoir/filter beds in middle of site; main services across site (gas); lack of
waterpressure requiring remedial work by Scottish Water; lack of access except over unadopted
road maintained according to user by residents of Farm Steading; continuing need to bus large
proportion of children to school, with cost and lack of sustainability this implies; inadequate road
infrastructure around hospital site; acute lack of parking at present would only be exacerbated by
school on site; loss of financial contribution by town centre school to local community; expense of
providing sports facilities on this site - contouring etc. Other planning issues including building on
green belt, opening up envelope to south of town for development.
The Pipelands site provides an excellent opportunity for the children of NE Fife to have the new,
single site school they deserve. This new school needs to be delivered as soon as possible to
replace existing facilities which are in a very poor state. I sincerely hope that all groups (politicans,
pupils, parents and community groups) will work together to ensure that this opportunity is not lost.
Children and parents have already been let down by the failure of previous proposals. The chance to
have the whole school and all its sporting facilities on one site is too good to miss. This site will
ensure there is no disruptive decant of pupils to temporary accommodation. There will not be
another opportunity like this for my children to attend a new Madras college. If this proposal fails, I
fear that a new school will never be built in time for my children (aged 7 and 9) to attend and they will
spend their secondary education in substandard accommodation.
I think the pipeland site would be a disaster for St.Andrews.Largo road is busy at present,think what
it will be like if the school plan goes ahead and the other plans for a new hotel and shopping at the
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
site of the abattoir are also adding to the traffic. The hordes of children who flood along Scooniehill
Road at lunchtime to Morrisons will be passing the already congested local hospital entrance and
parking area bringing the flock of seagulls with them as they discard their rubbish on their return to
school .I also believe there will be a danger to school children from the traffic congestion.
Use of the Pipelands site offers the opportunity to build an uncompromised school design with
minimal problems in decanting to the new site when ready. The proximity to Kilrymont means that
there should be minimal need to rethink the logistics of getting children from outside St Andrews to
and from school.
I can not understand why so much effort was put into the green belt, and no sooner have we got it
and some daft emptyheads want to put a school on it! The North haugh site has excellent bus
services from the Tay bridgehead area, easy access from the main road (& playing fields across the
road) So why not use it'
I think it will be really good to have all the students on the same campus and for them to have
modern, fit for purpose facilities. The proposed site is very near my house and I am comfortable
about its location.
The new school should be built on the so-called pond site or on the Kilrymont site NOT on Green
Belt land.
The Green Belt MUST be preserved; Why seek a review from The Reporter last year to change it
this year'
This site is very obviously on the wrong side of the town given the location of most of the pupils; it
has difficult access - through the town and past a very busy local hospital, and is on part of the
recently designated Green Belt.
Prefer site at pipeland to give all the benefits of a single site school and give some relief to the town
centre twice a day
There has been enough delay on building Madras .please think about the children being educated
,no more delays
Absolutely the best scenario. I have been reading a lot of arguments from various perspectives and
there is no question this is the best option. Please Please can we just consider our children - our
future, and move on giving them and the town, and the surrounding catchment towns, a school for
the 21st century and equivalent to other new high schools in Fife. Once it is built people who like
arguing about things can move on and start to argue about something else, but please do not do it at
the expense of our children. It will be nothing but an asset for the area.
Fife Council need to move forward with this proposal to enable them to provide secondary education
in adequate buildings. Time spent with endless consultations has led on the one hand to increasing
numbers of people deciding to send their children to private schools and on the other hand
increasing numbers of parents who feel there is no point in getting involved because nothing
happens anyway. Please make a new school happen now.
A sloping, cold windy site (expensive to heat and involving expensive roof engineering to withstand
the wind pressures, unnecessary extra travel daily for children already bussed from Taybridgehead,
treacherous 'access' for anyone coming up from town in winter, all on a Green Belt area - not good
thinking, Fife Council. I favour the North Haugh pond site as it is well situated for bus access, town
and playing fields. As a former Principal Teacher this is where I would have loved to work and as a
member of the community, this is where I would be proud to go for activities. Fife Council, please
listen.
The only sensible solution to the problems would be to build a new school in the Tayport area and
another in St Andrews. More manageable numbers and better education in each school. Years have
been wasted in practical discussion & obvious that only one school is the only option left
I would like coach traffic at the edge of the town rather than having to drive through Pipeland
What about green belt Increased traffic through St Andrews Too close to hospital
Should not be built on greenbelt
Feel putting the school at Pipeland would spoil the hillside setting and far too close to the hospital
The North Haugh Education Campus offers a much better alternative.
I love the idea. There should be a swimming pool because it would encourage kids to swim.
Health and safety issues: Congestion at roundabout at peak times on a very busy Largo Road. The
access road is very busy with vehicles entering and leaving the hospital car park throughout the day.
Moving the pumping station would be an expensive task (unforeseen problems could arise once
started).
1.It is mad to direct buses/cars through St Andrews to Pipeland site. 2. The site at North Haugh is
much better for Sport and recreation. 3. The North Haugh site would encourage co-operation with
the neighbouring University. 4. The purchase of the site in the centre by the university would ensure
a 'living' centre to the town rather than just more housing which the town doesn't need. 5. The site at
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
North Haugh doesnt break the guidelines that the Council have already set themselves.6. The site at
North Haugh could be set in attractive woodland and not stick out as an afterthought on an exposed
hillside.
Idont believe it will be built by August 2016. If we got told we were getting a new school in 2009 it still
wouldn’t be built to this day.
I love the sound of this school. So does my child. When this school is built my child will be old
enough to go. yay.
in principal i like the idea, but i think the school just be put on a more apporpriate piece of land.
just get on with it
it is a bad idea. the south street building is fabulous and free from the youths of kilrymont
Time to put the needs of family's above elderly campaigners than seem intent on putting their own
agenda ahead of the real needs if the town
this has been going on far to long. It is time we adults forgot the selfish self interest, and thought of
the children and their education.
I think it is wrong to build on designated greenbelt when there are other more appropriate sites to
build a school. It would be better for the school to be on the West side of town to reduce congestion
through residential streets. It would also be more appropriate and possibly inspirational for the
school to be close the University to promote interaction, rather than next to the hospital and a
supermarket. The town has an iconic skyline which has been preserved for hundreds of years. This
development would open up the hillside to development (as I suspected the hospital would do) and
damage the town's appeal to tourists and potential residents. I want my children to have a good
school, but I don't want to gain a school and spoil the town for future generations.
The Pipeland site is on the wrong side of the town for the large number of pupils commuting from the
Tay bridgehead. The Pond site on the North Haugh has not yet been properly considered from a
technical point of view, and would be much better placed for proximity to the playing fields at Station
Park, it's accessibility for travelling pupils, and the opportunity for interactions with the University.
The west side of town - the 'pond site' would be the most logical place to site the school; the correct
side of town for majority of commuting pupils and easy access to Station Park for continuing sport,
which incidentally, would be far easier for pupils to access than travelling by bus from Pipelands. The
new school would be an architectural statement just off the primary route into St Andrews with easy
access for pupils and staff into town. The 'pond site' could be drained and fit for building, how
thoroughly has this option been explored' To reject this site it has to be beyond any doubt that this
can't be achieved, it has to be the number one option and therefore rigorously pursued, one wonder
if this has been done. Instead the offer on the table will see a new Madras 'invisible' on the outskirts
of town, hardly befitting a school of this stature and history; only one can guess what Andrew Bell
would think as he spins in his grave of his visionary educational establishment 'hidden' on the
southern edge of town. Furthermore, the town would see a convoy of buses twice a day, not
forgetting of course buses used for physical education, travelling through the busy West Port area of
town and along Largo Road adding to localised air and noise pollution, encouraging to see that
people's health and well being have been considered. Furthermore, there is the consideration of
building on the Greenbelt, there is already the hospital, now a school proposal, what next' How about
the residents who live next to this site, surely not an attractive offer for them, how much weighting
would their opinion receive' - The pond site would not have this conflict. How about lunchtime options
for the pupils - hordes of Madras pupils descending on Morrisons, as would undoubtedly happen,
would bring its difficulties, not to mention the loss of an important revenue for many businesses in
town, already struggling with the economic downturn and increased rates - the distance of the west
of town would not prevent pupils from enjoying the amenities that are available in the town. It was
encouraging to see the previous option; the refurbished Kilrymont Road and the associated decant
to South Street being rejected. However, it has created support for Pipelands, which is based on 'this
or nothing' attitude and this is worrying that people are basing their opinions in this manner and not
on the wider issue of the Geographical location including other issues. Crucially, many future
generations of children and staff will use this facility and it is important that there are no regrets.
Playing fields in situ, part of the "Education Corridor", pupils readily accessing school by bus or
bicycle, less traffic in an already congested town which would not be lessened by a school requiring
through bus connections. The opportunity to perhaps work with the University laboratories which
would surround the school.
Perhaps a bridgehead school and a refurbishment of Madras, South St would alleviate the need for
mass bussing and save a considerable amount of money. It would also improve the educational
value of pupils in the Tay Bridge area by almost eliminating any travel at all.
whilst i think the linked site with university would have been ideal, as this is now a non-starter it is
important that a new school is constructed as soon as possible and pipelands is the best and only
option
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
get on with building a new school as soon as possible - kilrymont is falling down
Considering the length of time since problems with the current school were identified, it is ludicrous
that it had taken this long & that we have been through two consultations already. If this cannot be
delivered there needs to be an enquiry and a report to the Scottish government on the process
obviously not being fit for purpose i.e. the delivery of a new school. I strongly support this proposal.
Both the location and the site conditions are by far the best of all proposed sites considered to date.
The propensity to flooding of the alternative 'pond' site should have ruled it out from the start.
Family at Madras, we are in Tayport, and we completely agree with arguments for and support 100%
the Pipeland site.
Feel not good site access. Kilrymont Road site as good for access, and better space in building if
refurbished
My eldest child was to see a new school that now won't happen not sure my 7 year old will ever see
one as this has been going on for years. Please just build a new school.
My big sister now won't see a new school, do you think you could build me a new one I'm 7 and will
need it in 4yrs or is it to much to ask for that. My dads has a building company and he never takes
this long to build things even the schools he's built in Dundee .
this is most likely to result in a new school in the quickest time
It is situated on wrong side of town for around two thirds of pupils. Too close to hospital and
supermarket with buses causing congestion in this area.
should be on west side of town to avoid buses coming through town and easier pupils to commute
Although I am not local I frequently stay in Wormit to assist with the care of my nephews. I am
astounded by the condition of the current school and consider the new school is a necessity.
Please make it happen as soon as possible and without further delay. Our children have been
waiting for far too long for a new school.
Access road. Parking.
On the wrong side of the town and in the Green Belt
Having designated the Pipeland site as green belt it does seem strange and wrong to then build a
school there. It would also mean the development of the area with housing.
I think it is an ideal location as the buses do not have to go through the housing estate.
This is the wrong site in St Andrews - almost as bad as the Kilrymont one. A site at the North Haugh
would be much better - easier access for large numbers of pupils and cutting down on the number of
busses in and through st Andrews. I would be concerned about pupil movements at lunchtime
across Largo Road to Morrisons. The use of the school car park as an overspill for the hospital.
Breaching of a strongly fought for green belt. Possible knock on effects for station park.
I think the pupils should not be in the same building because of building reason because if teacher
always get people bullying each other there would always be a problem.
I think the money it will cost will be bad for the economy.
Can it be a big library
Can we have a very big play ground and racing.
Very mindful of no green or financial savings on bussing kids to school through a busy part of town,
very much against the early start to the day for many pupils in the catchment area which is contrary
to good educational development and the anility of pupils peaking in the morning. The mindset of the
plans should be geared towards a site on the west of town and preferably a site close to the Tay
Bridge with teachers moving bet
Can it be a big library
I think it is a great idea to build a new school. I love the ideas for it.
There needs to be sufficient facilities on site to provide lunches, as it would be unacceptable ( and
uncompetitive) for morrisons and aldi to gain all the trade which has gone from the centre of town.
I think it is good because it is one whole school and you don't have to spend half your time at high
school in one building and another in a different building.
I think it is good because the toilets sound nice and I think the steel frame is a good idea.
Yes - will it have glass?
I think there is too much glass.
Will the science labs be safe?
will our new school have glass?
Lots of glass like windows because it makes me feel nice.
Is this school bigger than the old one?
After PE will be able to have a shower?
some nice picnic tables
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I think there is too much glass in the school.
I think there is a bit too much glass.
We won't have to move schools and it will be better than the old school.
When you build the school you should use energy saving materials like that glass that keeps heat
from seeking out the building.
I think the school will be great.
Yes because a new school will be better than an old school.
I think that it is an idea.
I really like the idea.
It is a good idea I like it.
I like it please be quick
Please make sure adequate all weather sports facilities (with floodlights) are provided on campus
It sounds great how it is.
I think it will be fun.
I think it's an amazing idea.
I think it is a really good idea.
Will there be outdoor space to just relax ie a garden or area of grass and trees? also could there be
boards showing how to get to classrooms.
Hygienic toilets, space for hanging out in between classes, clean walls (no writing, chewing gum etc)
I think that it will be different to Tayport Primary school and fun.
I like the idea of having a new school built
Make sure it is like Dunfermline.
Time out room
Yes I would love a new school because my brother went to the school and said it is not very nice so I
would love a new school.
We will have a bigger place to go.
I would like to have a big enough science lab to do big experements KABOOM!!!
When I was in the hall I was so happy thank you.
I think it is great
I think it would help me a lot with school thank you.
It would be good to have a new school just incase you do not live near. It was also a good idea to
have another school because it would be better quality.
I think that it is great and that it should be built I really would like it.
It will be good because it's a bigger place to learn.
I support you on building the new school.
I think it is a great idea, something to look forward to.
I will help build Madras.
It is a very sensible idea for a new school. The space would be very useful.
Pupils are desperately needing a new school and deserve the very best which the council can
provide - this being the Pipeland option.
I strongly believe that staff and pupils would benefit enormously from modern, up-to-date facilities.
New facilities wold be beneficial in raising moral and positive self esteem and would lead to a rise in
attainment levels too.
Have nice toilets
I hope there is lots of space.
Only with they have nice toilets.
Good rugby pitches
I want lots of light. Good computers and nice toilets
Pipeland is the only available site, in or around St Andrews, where a new single site Madras College
can be developed.
There would be no decanting issues if Pipelands was to go ahead.
This site provides an 'all singing dancing' single site, with improved sports facilities that cannot be
equalled at Station Park.
This is indeed the most sensible option. I am a teacher at one of the associated primaries within
St.Andrews and an ex pupil of Madras College. This is long overdue.
The school needs to be built, stop ruining the education of our children
Time for discussion is over, decision must now be made. The Pipeland site is the only viable
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
proposal.
Consultation has been allowed to drag on for far too long - whilst the combined university proposal
may have been better it is now important to push ahed with new school build at Pipeland as soon as
possible.
Yes! It looks a great idea I have looked at the state of the old Madras
The bus route stops at lots of bus stups. There is 1 of more grass play grounds.
It is an amazing, brilliant, excellent idea. I would relly like it to happen, there are lots of great ideas,
like the social spaces, bridgtes and the playground.
It sounds like a good school and good education.
I think having a new school would be good because the other one is a bit run down.
I think we should build a new school because the old one is falling to bits.
Lots of colour in the hallways and classrooms
I think there should be a new Madras because the old Madras is falling down.
Because the Madras now is falling down and the toilets don't have much privacy.
I think its a good idea. But I do not want an open space classroom. I would love to go to this Madras!
I appreciate that St. Andrew's citizens might have objections but our children need a new school and
we shouldn't wait any longer. Go with this site please!
I really like the idea and they have a lot to work with. It has easy access to Morrisons.
Nice chairs and tables please.
Nice toilets, comfy seats
I think it's a very good idea. It'll be cool to have a new school. I support the bridges idea. Its a bit dirty
at the current school.
I think there should be a new school because the schools that are being used right now are a bit
grubby inside.
That there is a lot of light, nice places to sit.
That its got lots of colours and its bright inside!
I think it is a good idea.
I have seen the area they are thinking of building the school and it is quite rural. Will there be a
coffee shop?
Easy to reach classrooms
I think we should be a new school because it will be cleaner.
I think it is good because the pupils will still have Kilrymont to have as a school to work in while they
are building the new one, and it won't disturb the learning also its closer to Morrisons.
Good food please. And please, not netbooks - they're too small to type on.
Kids being closer to Morrisons.
I like the idea of the new school because it will have modern equipment to help with learning!
I think quality dining area where pupils can go to various places to eat and have a chat are essential
to the school.
What will happen to Kilrymont and South Street? If they are getting demolished, why?
How many pupils are in a class?
Is there a football pitch? are you allowed to bring laptops or iphones? are you allowed to open the
window?
Is there going to be a swimming pool?
How big are the classrooms going to be? Do you know who is going to teach?
Can you please have springboards, please, please, please.
Is there going to be a football pitch. Are you allowed to bring your phone to school. Can we have a
chat room. Are we allowed to bring a laptop.
Will we have a nice place to work and will we have our own desk.
Can it be still be a sunday school?
I don't want the toilets up to the roof and to the floor.
Could there be a gymnastics hall.
I think the new Madras will be good.
Secondary school in NE Fife In my opinion there needs to be a bridge head school and a school in
St Andrews. This avoids bussing the children in from the surrounding areas. If the school has to be
based in St Andrews, then why not the North Haugh site' That would keep the buses, in the main,
out of town. As a permanent resident and council tax payer, I feel marginalised in recent discussion.
I attended a meeting about the plans to find that the times had been changed and that "interested
parties" had been informed of the change. Well, no one had been in touch with me and there had
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
been no public announcement of the change of times. Recent events have been overtly targeted at
parents of school children. Whilst it is natural for parents to want the best for their children, this
should a balanced debate, and open to all residents. On the Fife Council website, there is a list of
people whose views are sought. This list does not include residents unless they fall into other
categrories. I consider that discussion should be open and transparent in ways that, in my opinion, it
has not been to date. Costings should be available for comparison for all of the possible options. I
have no idea why the Pipelands site is the "preferred" site for the Council. How was this decision, if
there has been a decision, reached' 1. My main concern is that if the school is built at Pipelands then
this will breech the green belt, be a hostage to fortune by setting a precedent for subsequent building
on the green belt. 2. Another significant concern for me is the transportation issue. I have
experienced the problems associated with the current bussing both at Kilrymont and in South Street.
I have been trapped in my parked car in South Street until the buses have collected the pupils and
have departed. I have been unable to drive along Kilrymont Road in either direction on occasions
due to the buses and unable to turn around because of other traffic that has also been impeded. Not
only is there the problem of the volume of buses but there is also the noise and air pollution caused
by them. Unless the bussing is stopped by having 2 schools in the area, then the prospect of
travelling or living along the school bus route to Pipelands site will be seriously and negatively
affected at certain times of the day. The positioning of the school adjacent to the hospital raises
concerns about the ability of ambulances to travel speedily along the bus route and enter the
hospital grounds both in terms of buses at certain times of the day and at other times the steady
stream of school children leaving the school grounds.
I think it is unfortunate that the Council have decided to make this an educational consultation but
linked it to a specific site. All of the benefits of a single site school are not unique to Pipeland but any
discussion of other sites has been deliberately suppressed. I am left concerned that the Pipeland
option has too many unanswered questions that mean that it may not be the quickest option - the
only educational benefit I could envisage
Can we have a party room.
Can we have a stage.
I think the new Madras school is very very good.
It will be nice to have a new school but the people who live there some of them might have a
problem.
Can you call it Pipeland High School
North Haugh sit is much better for transport & community facilities.
Call it Pipeland High School
Do all buses get in or do they get doubled up? Is both schools coming into one school?
Can you have tennis courts
Reflecting blinds, air condition and lockers
We want a locker or a place to keep stuff. We want bright light, a school doctor, music room
Special Blinds Big Lockers Big cafes a locker to put gym/running stuff in
Has it got blinds will it be hot or cold is there lockers
Special blinds for the glass that shines brightly through. Air conditioning for it too. Our own lockers.
Big hall.
I feel that Pipeland is the best option. The site offers a huge amount of land to be able to offer all
facilities needed. Also buses will not have to travel through housing estates to transport pupils to
school.
I don't think it should be built there because people want to have a walk or walk their dog and they
won't want to go if there is a big huge school.
Some people want a resourcing ring wood there be a light in the toilet
I would like a locker air conditioning musical instruments lockers
Amazing thinking to build at Pipeland Farm air conditioning locker for everybody big cafeteria blinds
bike shelters or stands
Air conditioning blinds and a good library lockers for every child, great toilets, bike racks, places to
keep musical instruments
Air con lockers toilets
We need a good school, please.
the children are due a good education, please stop talking and get this school built.
1 The site is on Green Belt land and is unlikely to be built without vociferous objection resulting in yet
more years of delay and frustration and no certainty of the outcome. 2 The site is on the wrong side
of the town, given that a majority of the pupils live North of the River Eden, and traffic distruption will
ensue.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Air con good ventilation systems amazing toilets, lockers for everyone
Reflective blinds, air con, own locker, astro football pitches, tennis courts.
Air con, lockers for everyone, blinds on the windows
Reflective blinds, lockers for everyone, instrument storage
Reflective blinds and air con, individual lockers (personalised) choir room
Reflective blinds, air con, personal lockers - big one from the ground to the ceiling.
This the only available site for a single site new school. It is time to get on and build it!
to have a fitness centre with tennis courts, weights, treadmills and basketball courts. Air con, cycle
route.
Lockers and air con couches in hall
A locker for every one in the school. Air con Bike rack
Air con our own free locker
Air con our own free locker fitness room with weights and treadmill
We should be able to bring in laptops. \Is there going to be bus passes for pupils. Good air con
because of glass. Bike lockers not bike sheds.
Too much bussing through town. Area too busy to cope with number of pupils walking to and fro
morrisons.
it will reduce traffic going through the town centre and it will be good to have all children on one site.
Site also allows for expansion in the future if necessary.
Not suitable area for large school - too many pupils being 'bussed' through town. Plus possible traffic
congestion when pupils walking to Morrisons
This site is on the wrong side of St. Andrews. The site is detrimental to the present advantages of
the hospital. Station Park has all the plus points for an ideal location.
The close proximity to hospital has many negative aspects. The ideal location for school is Station
Park or the Park site with access to playing fields simple, and reduction in bust town involvement
There is a more appropriate affordable site on western approach - 'Pond site' This site encroaches
on legally recognised green belt. Council officals, ultra vires, have refused alternatives, have
distorted estimates of costs to advantage Pipelands site. This site interferes with hospital
I understand the frustration felt by parents, teachers, Councillors and indeed everyone who has been
waiting for so long for a suitable site for a new school to be agreed. However, the years of delay
make it all the more important that it be right choice now, and Pipeland is not, in the green belt..
It took years to establish a green belt. If a school is built on green belt - how long before developers
move in? Why cannot the North Haugh site be re considered?
It is a priority this building gets built - and soon. The situation cannot continue as it is - something
needs to be done NOW.
Well I think you should get some parasols to put over the benches outside, to protect the wood.
The site is in the green belt and the school's construction there will catalyse further erosion of it. It is
not ecological to bus 60% of students to a school. It is contrary to green principles. There is a viable
and better alternative site at North Haugh.
I would love to have a new school!
South street madras 'shop front' looks original, however further investigation to the rear of the
building highlights the desperate need for refurbishment.
It is a longer way for pupils who walk to school
Longer walk
Pipeland not the best option. Removes school population from connection with town. Split site school
is undoubtedly better for attainment. During exams all pupils have peace and quiet. all teachers at
south street can focus on pupils.
Both Pipelands and the Pond Site are over budget. Also flooding is going to be a problem.
Penguins
The number of people who will flood into Morrisons every lunchtime? Dangerous road?
If I can't have it NO-ONE CAN!!
If it's not broken why fix it? School system still works, school's till standing and working.
I am glad the school will be here for my little sister and brother and maybe one day my own children.
One school would be too small.
Location isn't great as it is right next to the hospital. Think everyone is just desperate for a new
location, they will try build it anywhere.
I think the people should try to find more possible sites because it is quite likely that this site will fall
through as it is on green belt area.
It's dumb
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I like the two separate schools.
The town will struggle to survive.
Not sure.
I don't have a solution to what should happen to/for the new school but I think St. Andrews would
benefit if the school was within the town as a lot of them would be at a loss if it were to move.
It's a green belt site, so permission is unlikely.
I am annoyed that we are getting so much information about it but will never get to use it.
I feel it's too big a compromise. The council will regret putting the school here by the large levels of
money they will need to repair roads. Building a school at the bottom of a hill is not the brightest
idea. What about station park? It's a great facility and the school will be neglecting it.
Do not listen to anyone who says no
I think that it would have a massive affect on the businesses in the town.
Its on green belt land, but you are taking so long to find a place to build, I don't really care.
Why don't they just refurbish Kilrymont
Too much time spent on a new school rather than the one that's currently open and more important
waste of time and money.
Hurry up and build it
Just get it done.
The location at the South Street building is too historic to leave. Future generations will enjoy the
site.
What is going to happen to that structure that supplies water or power to those buildings south of the
site?
How long do we have to wait before the pupils at Madras have a school that allows them to take part
in lessons like other pupils in fife as befits the 21st century'
Area isn't very central. I like the fact that Madras is a split site school.
Jesus told me to
Lunch improves at school Buses for people in St Andrews
Green belt
I think it's important that building proposals for the new school go ahead as soon as possible. The
site at pipeland seems to be the best option now, after many years of consultation. It doesn't want to
be delayed further.
The fact that it is a green belt area will probably mean planning permission will not be granted and
the saga will continue. Having all the buses go through the town and onto a congested area at the
Hospital and Morrison's will cause even more congestion and pollution.
even if it is a compromise, we need a new school
A one site Madras is a must
Yes but I don't think it's fair the next generation get a better education than us
This is a dull part of town - not a healthy environment for a school. It means that the people who
come from further out - Wormit and Gauldry have to travel further.
I don't like how all years will be merged together into one school. Also, the new school in Pipeland
will affect the view / landscape.
2/3 of our pupils travel form the North. This will mean 72 bus journeys right through the heart of the
town each day. Local businesses in the town centre will be greatly affected. station Park will
eventually be lost and the proposed new outdoor areas would not be able to cope with the extensive
extra curricular programee that the school runs. This will affect both curricular and extra curricular
activities at Madras College. Parking for the hospital will become an issue. There already is not
enough spaces so school spaces will have to be used. There are very few benefits to the pupils,
staff, parents, town and local community that I can see in building an isolated school at the pipelands
site.
Will it affect the skyline of St Andrews? Will it disturb wildlife? What about the green space?
The school will be better than here.
Ace, it is mad, I want to see it.
It would be good for people / pupils in the future.
The site is not the best choice for the pupils' educational needs or the community. This choice seems
to be a 'last resort' rather than a good choice. The right of way through the site and the pumping
station are problematic not to mention the use of brown belt space. This option is very politically
motivated. We need a single site but not at any cost. We should be finding a better solution and not
be pushed around by a very vocal few. (Many of whom do not have any direct connection to the
school). Refurbishing Kilrymont is a better option.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Support given because continuing with not-fit-for-purpose buildings on split site needs a resolution.
Insufficient information exists on "Pond" or other alternative sites which would allow a fair
comparison. Transport implications of this site are a worry; and the pumping station could be a
problem. People are being asked to make a decision without full information
It isn't very fair on the houses and the people that live there.
Modern.
A new school is a priority and we cannot continue to be pushed back year on year...childrens
education at the end of the day should be the number 1 priority and current facilities are hindering
the pupils of madras education
I dont care as long as we get a bit of time with a nice new school
An excellent site, much better and drier than the pond.
as long as it does not have too much affect on our education
It is important that the build starts as soon as possible.
Will it be suitable for everyone?
All sports facilities should be open to the public
it would be nice to get a new school because we really need it but we probably wont get to use it
It's on the green belt and so is protected
I think the new school wlll be great. It will be a shame that it won't be positioned at the heart of the
community. I know it was mentioned that it will still be used for community use, thus making the it the
heart of the community, but I know I love the location of Madras South Street as it is.
Giant wall seperating 1st-3rd years from 4-6th years. If this isn't put in I want my vote to count as no.
Will it actually happen?
I think the astro will be quality if it's open to the public.
That's where I walk my dogs
You will lose what Madras is. This building is what makes this school unique.
I think it is important to keep the history of where Madras College is, at South Street.
Decision doesn't really affect me.
The split site school is not ideal but it is beneficial overall.
Older kids don't want to be in the same school as younger kids.
Has to have a gym. Has to have 4g astro with good sports facilities. Must have comfy chairs. Must
have a velodrome good cycling facility.
Why not fix up the current school as they'll likely last longer than a single school!!
This school is crap and we need a new one.
Although I won't be here when the school is complete, it's current state is downgrading. Having
separate buildings causes hardship for teachers who have to travel and affects learning in pupils.
However, the state of buildings show the state that the new building could fall into.
Do the pupils feel a new Madras is needed? Obviously this consultation will be a general indicator,
but in my experience the general buzz around the school is "why do we need it?" and "why should
we care?"
I am not happy about 3rd years not getting a change to attend the new school but other than that I
think its a great idea
Cherry blossom trees, a wide variety of wild plants. A really deep hole (to China). Treadmills. A
forge.
The first to third years wouyld be with the fourth to sixth years. The separate schools are good
because as soon as the thrid years go up to South Street they mature. Putting them all together
wouldn't work.
why not just do up the old school
South Street has always been part of Madras College, I would prefer that you would refurbish South
Stree and Kilrymont with high-tech equipment. You already have 2 sets of land!
South Street being a part of Madras history. Extreme refurbishment to be made to South Street to
allow accessability for wheelchairs etc.
I dont think we should have to vote for a new school we should just get one
The planning risk is too great. Greater urgency and certainty is needed. Kilrymont offers the only
solution within budget, and with the required degree of certainty. Kilrymont offers an excellent design
not possible on a green field site for £40m
how are they meant to build the school and playing fields on a hill?
South Street allows independance for older students. By building a single site it would take that
away.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
it will look nice but the bad thing is everyone looks forward to south street because of the shops
Wouldn't that disturb the people at the hospital? It could even effect them.
dont mind but they should just make one wherever
I think it would be better to refurbish the school.
I dont care where it is, just get on with it
We as a staff, along with the community have waited TOO LONG for a new school - learners in this
area are being seriously disadvantaged by the lack of progress. The Council need to get to grip with
the situation and act now to ensure a new school is built asap.
I think it is very important to move this project on as quickly as is possible. The need for a new
school is desperate and the education of our pupils is suffering in light of these delays.
the kilrymont road site was much better and we would have had an amazing site but seeing as
people said no to that even though they do not work at tthe school this is the next best option or
quite frankly we will NEVER get a new school
I would support it if there was a swimming pool being built and if we were allowed out at lunch. I think
you should renovate Kilrymont and South Street.
I live on Pipelands and it would be right in front of my house blocking the view.
If you built on Pipeland you would not get the facilities tha tyou would with refurbishing Kilrymont.
South Street is an amazing school and the S1s are looking forward to it.
Costs too much - bad place to build
Redevelopment of the Kilrymont building might be more comfortable for pupils
Need a new school, this one smells.
Taken too long!
I don't wanna go to morrisons everyday or eat school meals.
I don't like change
It would mean that you wouldn't have a lot of places to go for lunch. It might make it scarier for all the
little kids coming up in S1 cause all the older kids.
I don't see a problem with the proposal, the building just now is quite old, however a split site school
is quite refreshing as a pupil having come from Bell Baxter.
We know that building another school would cost money but why build a new one when we can save
money and build things like houses.
It sucks. Don't bother its a waste of monies.
Just need to resolve the disputes and provide a new school for the children. Too many children
have/are being disadvantaged whilst this debate rumbles on.
Yes, but I probably won't get in the school.
I think it's the best idea yet and really like it.
Totally the wrong side of St Andrews
Conditions in the existing school are totally inappropriate for 21st century learning. Travels between
buildings for staff are stressful and inconvenient.
A new school is desperately needed and the Pipeland Site is by far the best option proposed to date
Hurry up.
Before I came here a new school was built where I used to live and it was great geing in a newer
school.
I think that it would be nice to have a new environment to learn and work in.
I think it will be good for the people in years to come.
This will involve bussing more pupils through the town, but is the best remaining option.
I think it will be good to have a new school. It will be a lot cleaner.
It's got a good view.
A decision needs to be made, the whole situation is becoming ridiculous. The children are our future,
the least we can do is secure, first class learning experience for them.
Lack of detail about what is going to be provided ie Exactly what are we going to get for the money
when we build on this site
Pipeland seems to have less to recommend it than other options.
The business around the current school will struggle.
To have sports fields.
About time we got a new school.
Free bus passes!
We must consider the presence of the site on a green belt.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
We won't be here, so it's not really a big deal to me.
Will it disturb the hospital?
I think a new school would benefit the pupils.
I think a new school is needed for both school buildings are falling apart. They need to hurry up and
decide though for it's getting ridiculous.
Inadequate sports facilities at Pipeland, disruption to hospital access, bussing pupils in across town
I think that since the most important part of school is the kits & teachers we shouldn't be put in
portakabins
I love having two separate schools but I love the location for the new one.
- Build a Bridgehead school, - Refurbish South Street - Stop excessive bussing of pupils
I am slightly worried about the hospital and the flow of traffic
We have waited too long for a new school, and now we hve an opportunity to get one. For the sake
of us, do it now.
I think Pipeland site is an excellent site and can be accessed by the main A915, rather than buses
having to turn off through a housing estate. Therefore far better than the current site. The pond site
would only be fractionally closer for pupils travelling from the Bridgend, so I find arguments about
positioning on transport grounds ludicrous. Buses will be able to easily drive straight through to
Pipeland on the current main road and not have to enter the town centre at all. I cannot see how it
could possibly spoil the 'vista' of St Andrews as you approach the town from largo- there's already a
caravan site and a proposed golf course at feddinch anyway, plus steadings developments
alongside the proposed site. From the map, the High school would merely be infilling. I feel
extremely angered by arguments against encroaching on geen site land- things change and cannot
always stay the same. We need a new school as a greater priority to saving a bit of old farmland. It's
incredible that a town like St andrews is living with the appalling existing school and people are
bickering and arguing about where the school should be after all these years. I am bored with the
whole debate and bored with being consulted. In the beginning I would have preferred the pond site,
with a fantastic vision of the school and university sharing facilities and it would have been fantastic
for all pupils. A nice little underpass to the current sports fields etc. BUT, We are told that that site is
not financially viable and so I suppose I have to accept that (and I like to believe that I should have
faith in council officials who are looking at the finances); so I have had to compromise. The pond site
would have still meant a huge trek to school for lots of the towns pupils. The fact that children can
walk to Pipeland is great. I don't think the Council should be transporting any child to school where
they can walk to it within an hour- in terms of child health its the best thing we could be doing for the
next generation. This may be a bit of a sideways discussion and not for this forum, but I would also
like to comment on the other ridiculous arguments I have heard from parents about both pipeland
and the pond site, in terms of pupils safely getting to shops at lunch time. Why are we encouraging
our children to go to local shops and purchase rubbish for lunch' They all do it, and those that may
want to eat healthier have to cope with withstanding peer pressure to stand alone. How do we
expect our pupils to get the best out of a shiny brand new school if they spend their afternoons filled
with sugar. Fife council have put so much wasted money into healthy initiatives, when they could
have saved a fortune by providing a decent school refectory where pupils have a decent lunchtime
meal, a space for them to congregate and relax together or play sport in their lunchbreak and
enforce a rule that they're not allowed off school premises. My daughter spends her lunch break
sprinting at high speed to the local Spa (so she can be near the front of the huge queue of pupils
heading there), she then eats as she's sprinting back along to school, to then hang around the
lockers until classes start again. Her and her friends usually have a bread roll, bag of crisps and
share out packets of biscuits. We have to help our children make healthier choices. It's not unusual
for me to see queues of boys in local supermarkets buying cakes and packets of biscuits, because
they are cheap and fill them up (but only for about an hour with a quick sugar energy fix). These
issues are not difficult to solve. Maybe a new school should start with a new regime too.
a new school is needed immediately location is less important than timescale
I feel that the history of the school should remain intact.
Feel the traffic on the Largo Road will be equally inconvenient as that of Kilrymont. The access road
is far too narrow to Pipeland and the noise for the hospice will disturb the patients.
even though theres less than 10% chance the school will be done in time for me (knowing the
Council!). It might be done for my brother & sister
Location.
I think it's a great idea!
Taking school out of the community. Renovate South Street and build new school at Tay Bridge.
Hurry up!
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Be considerate for those in and around the hospital area. They might hear the kids, especially going
past the hospital. Pupils, unless with reason to do so, should not be allowed to stand/hang about the
hospital. Apart from this, I think Pipeland is probably one of the best places in St Andrews.
Its good that we are getting a new modern building.
I think it will be good to have a new school here but don't know what it will really look like.
Appears to be a good location and it is about time Fife Council got on with a Single site Madras.
Because it is a stupid idea because if they build a swimming pool the houses behind the school will
have barely any water.
When you by the land you will have hardly any money to build a new building but if you renovate
Kilrymont school.
use half of the money to fix Kilrymont and the other half to fix South Street
I would prefer it to be in Kilrymont
the new school is a bit smaller than the one we have now. If it did get built the bell would annoy the
hospital.
I think the site itself isn't very feasible for many reasons such as it's out of the heart of St Andrews
but any site and new school is better than the one we have.
Theres nothing wrong with Madras Kilrymont just now save hassel and keep Kilrymont
remodel the old school. There will be not much room.
The hospital patients might like the noise.
This school is disgusting, that's why.
Because we won't get to go and everyone else will get to go. Find this school sucks!
Nice swimming poool Sauna Ski slope Zoo Rollercoaster Escalators Steam room
You will have to move tonnes of dirt to create playing fields.
Kilrymont should be renovated
Not many places to go to lunch
There is only morrison's for going to lunch.
It smells funny and has a weird name.
should renovate Kilrymont
If you are going to do it hurry up!
Please stop prevaricating and get the new school built as soon as possible. Pupils at Madras
College have put up with sub-standard buildings and facilities too long. They deserve better!
As long as the building of it doesn't affect my learning.
I think we need to consider the educational needs of our pupils and prepare them to be 21st C able
to use a full range of state of the art resources and ITC. The new site should facilitate this.
Keep 1-3rd years and 4-6 years separate.
We've done a form like this at least 3 times already why do you need our approval.
Get a move on and start building! Kids educations are at risk.
We need a new building, we have waited for too long already, sort it out.
New and better building is a good advantage for the school.
Do not listen to anyone who says 'no', or those Fife Council people who don't care about the pupils.
Everybody wants the new school so just build it.
Hurry up, school is falling apart.
The deteriorating nature of the school buildings
School is falling apart
Please don’t make a window roof
We need a new school. Even though it's 5 years late.
The pupils have never been given information in context, or had the options given to them. Each
time the plan has been proposed on it's own. the pupil consultation is, as it seems a formality, the
pupils are only being involved when the law requires them to be.
Yes, please have a proper tuck shop that you can make money from and put towards the schools
needs, and ban students from leaving at lunchtime unless they live in St Andrews. Keeps kids safe
and makes money for the school.
The single site should go ahead with one for the bridge head area. The cost and future huge cost
has to be considered busing the kids to madras. Also the time spent on the transport could be better
spent syudying ! Huge extra costs to parents for any extra curricular events or again the kids miss
out. Sell both Madras sites, have a smaller new site on the university campus. Sell Tayport
council/Library building & nursery. Move council, nursery, playgroup & library to old primary Now the
playgroup & nursery have room to take the size of classes,the increased village population needs !
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Rent out space for private nursery'!. Build new school at the top of the village ...bridge to
newport...combined primary/secondary + overdue sports facilities for Tayport from revenues raised &
money saved ...job done properley !!! 01382552061 PS Too late for my kids....do the right
thing...please !!!!
The alternative site of North Haugh seems better for transporting children to St Andrews and
provides good sports facilities there are a number of modern buildings already located and the
shared facilities with the university would be be easier in terms of location . As a mother of a future
Madras pupil and resident of St Andrews this is the so;ution I would like to be pursued.
I said no because it is right beside the hospital
I think having a double site school greatly increases the maturity of the pupils. It would also be a
shame to lose South Street.
Why are we having to get dragged through this if we aren't even going to be in it.
Only ask people that are able to go.
The school has been saying for over 10 years that a new school is going to be built. The money
could be used to refurbish the school during the summer holiday.
Why do we have to fill in a form when we aren't even going to be at that school
in support if it means that we get a new school as soon as possible. Not wholly convinced that it is
the best site.
I firmly believe that rejection of the Kilrymont refurbishment is a mistake and primarily a reaction to a
vocal minority of -albeit influential- parents. I have 2 children currently at Madras College and my
younger daughter will be attending the school from 2015 onwards and have been a teacher for
almost 30 years - I feel this qualifies me to comment. Points: * quality of teaching and management
is as important as location for a school *the lure of a "brand new school" is a diversion from the core
issue of a "fit for purpose" building * refurbishment will allow the required state of the art facilities to
be provided at reasonable cost. * for "planning" reasons (periphery of town/current land usage etc)
see the points made by others oposed to the Pipeland site.
No; there should be another School between St Andrews and the River Tay
it sounds brill
I am fed up waiting for Fife Council to find an appropriate piece of land to build a school. This is a
site which meets all the right criteria for a great school. My daughter will be in S6 when the proposed
school is due to be finished. She is likely to miss it altogether. We moved to Fife in 1998 when a new
school was spoken about. Come on Fife Council.....build the school. I certainly don't want my other 2
children to miss out.....
This has gone on too long and pupils do not need further disruption to their education. A new build
on a fresh site seems the best way forward.
Although for new school I am concerned about amount of buses having to go through edge of St
Andrews and the environmental impact in the area.
I think it should be built at the existing site of Kilrymont even though there would be disruption for
some pupils for a few years. Failing that I would support a Madras at Pipeland.
Although a modern single site school would be an improvement, The Royal Burgh of St. Andrews
Community Council does not agree that the Pipeland site is the best site for the following reasons: a.
More than 60% of the children will continue to be bussed from the Tay Bridgehead area, and
continue to spend up to 100 minutes per school day on a bus. b. The previously stated goals of
positioning the school near the University buildings has been completely lost by this proposal. Sixth
form pupils at Madras will no longer have easy access to the University Library. c. The provisional
plans provided show that the Pipeland site is not suitable for providing appropriate running track for
the children. d. The loss of the swimming pool for the children will further erode the educational
standards. e. The development of this site will lead to more pollution in and around St. Andrews and
North East Fife, contrary to the stated Scottish Government intentions of reducing pollution and CO2
emissions. f. The cost of bussing the children for a period of 50 years will far outweigh the costs of
any increase cost of building the school on a more appropriate site. g. Positioning the new school
next to a water treatment works is an unacceptable risk to the health of the school children.
I strongly support this proposal.
Not in the best site regarding volume of traffic and having to come through St Andrews to get to
school. I don't believe the current infrastructure could cope. Also not considering local amenities
(shops) and the volume of pupils who will be outwith the grounds during the lunchtime period. Does
this site meet the needs of Health and Wellbeing/outdoor learning which permeates Curriculum for
Excellence' Or is Fife Council still going to be funding transport to and from Station Park'
The Pipeland site is totally unsuitable. The main reason for this is that to build on the Pipeland site is
in breach of the recently finalised Local Plan. In particular it is unbelievable and unethical that the
council should even consider building on the newly-established Green Belt. The Southern hillside
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
provides a geographical boundary for the town and it is essential that it should be protected in order
to preserve the town's unique setting. Secondly, the environmental impact of a fleet of school buses
travelling to and from the school daily must be considered. Since over half the potential pupils will
come from the north and west of the town, a site at the NW edge of the town should be considered.
As you well know the proposed site has just become part of the green belt proposed by the Scottish
government and adopted by Fife Council under the St Andrews and East Fife Local Plan (5th
October 2012). The Muir Group has been trying to obtain planning permission for this site under
different guises for a number of years without success and with considerable opposition from local
residents. Building on this site would likely be opposed by local residents and the Scottish
government, have considerable impact on the southern outlook of the town and set a precedent for
further building on green field sites both at the current location and elsewhere. I would urge the
council to properly consider alternative locations for the new school.
It has taken many years to establish the Green Belt. No way should it be built on now. Also the
damage to the environment caused by school buses travelling daily through the town should be
considered. Therefore a site at the NW edge of the town is the only sensible option.
The Madras College Parent Council, which I chair, supports the proposal on the educational grounds
that the school needs a new building on a single site. We have significant reservations about certain
technical issues, including: 1. The need for public rights of way to be redirected for the security of the
school. 2. That water supply and drainage be adequate for the school and neighbouring residents. 3.
Support for the current generation of pupils and teachers who must cope with the facilities as they
are.
Our children need a decent school asap
I think this is the perfect place for children and the community to have a secondary school built.
I want a nice new school when I go to big school
This is from Canongate Primary Parent council, St Andrews. We took a vote at our last meeting, last
week, which was unanimous. As parents we want the best for our children, as soon as possible,
therefore pipeland is the best, quickest and only option.
this site would mean bringing many buses through the town and would also cause congestion at the
hospital
Fed up with the debate. Pipelands is well suited.
Much more sensible idea to have only one campus!!
Resident of St Andrews - Grandparent
Time to simply get on with it! Been plenty years in planning / discussions, time to start building
Lets not delay with others problems. It has been a long time in talking about time for action.
It needs to happen now
Single site school, purpose built, best site available, long overdue, advantage as for pupils educaton,
required NOW!
North Est Fife and St Andrews need a new purpose built school on a single sute wutg access abilty the traffic congestion in kilrymont road and small residential streets with buses is unsustainable as is
chao in south street - this is long overdue, Our children deserve better than a compromise!
Pipeland is the wrong side of St Andrews for the majority of pupils attending Madras. We were given
the vision by Fife Council of a wonderful view experience in (21st education where a secondary
school on the West side would share facilities with the University. Antyhing else poor substitute.
I believe this is the best option because it allows all necessary facilities to be one site which I
consider to be the highest importance for the childrens education. This should take priority over a
green belt.
Very important for St Andrews to offer a purpose built building that parents, pupils and staff can be
proud to work in and have dealings with.
Let's make this happen
1. Pipeland is in the wrong, geographical area for more than 50% of pupils. 2. The newly formed
Green Belt which has taken so long to establish should not immediately be breached. 3. The
Pipeland site had 'planning issues' because of its Green Belt status which will cause delays.
Location
'Pond' would be ideal - but as the only real option - then Pipeland is a good second.
The school needs to match the educational facilities eg practical spaces, offered by recent schools in
Fife such as Dunfermline High School. Fife council should add extra money for the purchase of the
land.
I don't think it has been properly planned and it is not a suitable place for the school.
I don't think that Pipelands is the best place for the new school, the school would stand out and ruin
the view of St. Andrews.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
we are waiting far too long for the new school to be built. The sooner it is done the more children will
benefit from the modern facilities which reflects the 'age' which they are growing up in.
Best available spot
This has to be decided asap, enough time has gone by.
The present building is dangerous and is not allownig children to learn in a sufficient manner.
If you go and stand where the school is proposed to be there is a wonderful view over the town of
St.Andrews. If you put a school there you'll ruin the fantastic view.
Nothing is wrong with this school really. All that needs to change is some of the classrooms.
I don't feel that it is properly planned. Flooding problems.
I was in favour of the previous Kilrymont option and still think this would be a better site. I think it may
take some time to deliver the school on the Pipelands site if there are difficulties in gaining planning
permission. There may be less money to spend on the school building itself if better access roads
are required and if the drainage problem on the sloping site has to be rectified. I also have concerns
about the amount of traffic and traffic flow at the roundabout beside the hospital. I assume some sort
of traffic survey or consultation would have to be carried out. What sort of timescale would this
involve' This would be a very busy road particularly if there is redevelopment at the abattoir site.
I believe the green belt should be protected.
Get on with this school, long overdue
It's about time we got a good new school for our kids
Split building is better because you don't have all the older ones with you.
There are draining problems - setting up stable sports fields could be an issue. There's a right of way
running directly through the site - it cannot be moved.
This is the only suitable site in St Andrews
There will be 1st to 6th year in the same school and only Morrisons to go to and no one likes the
school food so lunch will be a problem.
Why not refurbish present school. Seems to me, Fife Council or whoever involved in this, is more
than happy to spend other people's money.
Get on with it. the children deserve a new school soon.
I strongly believe in the need for a new school in St Andrews but I do not believe Pipeland is a
suitable site. It is on the wrong side of town, greenbelt land and a difficult, sloping site for building on.
I can see no good reason why this site has been chosen.
Traffic access(daily and after hours activities), town traffic congestion and bus air pollution,proximity
to Community Hospital and large Supermarket,Greenbelt violation,land valuation arguments of
alternative site not transparent. Site disadvantages majority of pupils from Tay bridgehead and NW
Fife.
A new school is required. The Pipeland site has not been subjected to an appropriate level of
scrutiny. Public consultation has revealed uncertainties in budget, pupil security, vehicular access,
planning. Other sites have been dismissed for the sake of speed. This not the correct approach.
This is a designated green belt area. We are not teaching our young people about respect for our
earth/landscapes if we build on "green" areas. These areas form a part of our emotional and mental
health and wellbeing.
I think the site is unsuitable in educational aspects, being on a steep slope with access constraints,
and without the advantage of being in the town centre and so being part of it.
I presume that this has already been considered but I think it is improtant to make the outlying areas
a nice place to be.
Pond site perfect.
I think you should build this one and not change your mind to some where else
Destruction of green belt. Short term planning view of impact on town and environment. Bringing
buses and cars further into town. Hospital, hospital staff and school staff parking requirements not
thought through.
Site at wrong end of town. School buses to come through town causing unnecessary congestion,
pollution and damage to road surfaces.
Extra curricular buses to Strathkinness. 50m pool
Site at wrong end of town - school buses to come through town causing unnecessary pollution,
congestion and damage to road surfaces.
To be honest I am fed up of hearing about it. I will not see this school.
It is nonsense to build a large school next to a hospital with palliative care wards (ie people dying!)
Noise from school/playing fields! Pupils will also be tempted to cross a busy trunk road (A915) twice
a day in order to reach Morrisons supermarket, passing hospital on the way! Bus/car congest
However I think you should consider housing values and how it affects the hospital.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
As a parent of former pupils I spent many years at Parent Council meetings discussing the need for
a new school and the importance in terms of the best educational option for it to be built close to the
University - there was even a TES article about the advantages of the first secondary school in S
The site needs to be secured quickly to ensure a good educational future for our children.
I would want to be a whole school, it would be easier to get to Morrisons.
The cost used in building a new site at Pipeland could be much better used in renovating the
Kilrymont side and using money on improving poorly kept and vastly inferior equipment for the
benefit of the education of the children in the school.
If possible, to refurbish Kilrymont would be better.
Despite the issue of building on wet land I feel that the best location is at the "Pond Site". This is due
to transport, location and preservation of the green belt.
Owing to the level of "Bussed" transport in the area of Kilrymont building on Scooniehill Road. I
would prefer the new school on the "Pond Site"
Green belt newly designated. wrong place carbon footprint will be massive
Quite the wrong site - building on green belt is a great mistake and will destroy unique character of
St. Andrews.
Traffic considerations by hospital green field site compromises building line of town cost of transport
to deliver pupils to school
Having a site near to university for the future re possible joining up of the two - School/University
Whilst valuing the greenbelt, I do strongly feel that the education of our children and young people is
of utmost importance and takes priority in this case.
At some point, the focus needs to be on providing the best education and not the ongoing and
seemingly everlasting discussion of where to put the school. Facilities are necessary if people are
committed to the children's education at Madras.
I like the size and design of the new school. It looks modern and comfortable. I want to go to school
there, not my grandchildren!
it shouldn't have become a Pipeland or nothing argument - my children's education is more important
than local politics - some council members have an agenda and want to win
To build a new school on green field and a jobbing farm is sheer hypocrisy by FiFe Council and all
its councillors. Notwithstanding, the decimation of St.Andrews treasured green belt, This proposal
makes a mockery of Fife Council's tag line 'think green' and recycling mandate for 21st century.
Kilrymont Road is the best place for a new Madras. There are already wonderful plans submitted
for refurbishment of a purposely built school with plenty land for playing fields. Gouging out a hillside
and building concrete abhorrent barn shed style school is absolute madness by Fife council and I
shall be taking this to my MP, MEP and the Press. Please follow your own advise "think green"
recycle Kilrymont Road for a splendid new Madras College
I think the whole process has gone on long enough without any improved outcome for the children
attending Madras. Discussion around building a single site school started quite some time ago and I
feel it has been long overdue decision to get on and agree a site and make positive steps forward so
that the learning enviroment is made better. All the while I have seen many other secondary schools
in Fife pop up - probably beacause they do not have the same group of obstructive parents (that I
have observed at various meetings regarding the school new build) who appear to strive for a
'perfect' site that doesn't exist. GET ON WITH BUILDING SO AT LEAST MY GRANDCHILDREN
MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A WELL EQUIPED SCHOOL THAT
ENCOURAGES LEARNING WITH A NICE ENVIROMENT.
This is the only possible site for the new school and the children are in desperate need for a new
school, no more time can be wasted. It is in a good site. I am also a resident as well as a parent in St
Andrews, I stay very close to the site, and would not have a problem having the school there even
though it is on greenbelt. Education of our children is far more important than a field! Even though a
small amount of people are against the site because of the green belt(most of them being over 65),
these people do not represent the majority in the town. It is the only option for a school, and a good
option at that.
I would prefer the budget to be spent entirely on building a new school on land owned by the council,
i.e. the Kilrymont site. If this is not possible, the Pond site is a better option than the Pipeland site
due to existing traffic problems and the high percentage of the school roll traveling outwith St
Andrews.
I am vehemently opposed to this ludicrous proposal for the new Madras college to be a new build on
Pipelands Farm. To build a new school on green field and a jobbing farm is sheer hypocrisy by FiFe
Council and all its councillors. Notwithstanding, the decimation of St.Andrews treasured green belt.
This proposal makes a mockery of Fife Council's tag line 'think green' and recycling mandate for
21st century. Kilrymont Road is the best place for a new Madras. There are already wonderful
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
plans submitted for refurbishment of a purposely built school with plenty land for playing fields. This
consultation process is another waste of time and tax payers money. Gouging out a hillside and
building a concrete abhorrent barn shed style school is absolute madness by Fife council and I shall
be taking this to my MP, MEP and the Press. Please follow your own advice and "think green"
recycle Kilrymont Road for a splendid new Madras College.
Clearly least bad option. Whatever can be done to protect the view should be
Right idea, wrong site.
I deserve a new school. We all have the right to have the best education we can have.
Please build the school quickly. Our children deserve an excellent school to be educated in. They
also deserve to have their teachers on site throughout the day rather than have their teachers
arriving late or leaving early to allow them to travel to the other building. This process has taken far
too long and too many children have been affected by this - please just build it!
The most important thing is that we get a single site school fit for teaching in the 21 st century and
this happens without any further delay.
Whilst building on a green field site isn't ideal, this would at least be within walking distance for most
St Andrews pupils and ensure that the "Tay Bridge" buses are only running up/down the Largo Road
(so not going round small roads around Kilrymont/ making South Street busier). Any site near Station
Park would mean just as many buses for the "Tay Bridge" pupils *plus* buses for children around St
Andrews too (which isn't very "green")
Please build the new school ASAP.
The Pipelands site will give the best opportunity for all school facilities to be on one site and for a
purpose built school that will meet the challenges of a 21st century education.
I think the council needs to get a move on with this, other schools in Fife have popped up but this
has been rumbling on for years. The children of the area NEED a new school
I believe that the idea of building a new school within the designated green belt around St Andrews
will have a profoundly detrimental impact on the long term development of the town without any
discernible educational benefit when compared to a redevelopment and expansion of the Kilrymont
Rd buildings
Please make this happen quickly. I'm the parent of a P1 and I hope he will start S1 in the new
madras in 6 years time. The pipeland site is clearly the only suitable site for a single site school in St.
Andrews so there is really no other option. This must happen
Would like to see rough plans of the school.
The school should still be divided in some way so the new S1 classes do not feel overwhelmed by
the size of the school and the older pupils.With careful planning this can easily be achieved on this
large 30 acre site.
We want a swimming pool
Just get on with it please this whole affair has g Dragged on far too long. Lets have a high school
that we can all be very proud of. A place where our children and our future can continue to flourish
and thrive in a stimulating environment.
Please can we have a swimming pool.
No evidence has been produced to reassure people that there will not be further delay caused by
attempting to build the school in a newly-established Green Belt with a Right of Way running through
the site and an industrial complex within the site. It is on the wrong side of town as far as a large
majority of traveling pupils are concerned. There are better and more imaginative sites available.
I think it is time the welfare and education of the pupils is made the top priority. A new school needs
to be built as soon as possible. Other new schools in Fife seem to be built without all the
procrastination that has accompanied Madras.
I voted in favour of the Kilrymont option. Now I vote in favour of this proposal at Pipeland because it
is the one most likely to be completed within a reasonable timescale and within budget.
We were first promised a new secondary school in St Andrews to open this year, since which time
there has been a series of delays and costly consultations, which the council has then chosen to
ignore. The net result would seem to be that over a million pounds has been wasted and no progress
has been made. The Pipeland site is unrealistic, given it relies on permission to build on very
zealously guarded greenbelt land.
Please just get on with it, our children need and deserve much better facilities than the current
dreadful provision.
Green belt
1. newly establisehd green belt would be broken - this has been awaited all the time we have lived in
St Andrews - nearly 16 years. 2. proximity to the new hospital is unacceptable - noise,access, busy
roads, parking and sfaety of the children and elderly using the hospital are all serious issues. 3. it is
the wrong side of town! it is not the only solution. this is the third "preferred" site of fife council. 4.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
inconceiavable to have all that traffic sttill running through town when this is one of the major issues
of the current school - no improvement on any front.
It should be built, our current building is old and not very modern. The building need to be hi-tech.
The design should sit in with the old style of st andrews
I feel that the design of this building can not be too modern as we live in a very old town
Just want Education to make a decision and go ahead
More sports halls e.g. basketball
Get on with the new build for the sake of the pupils and teachers who have to work in the current
Madras. The 'hype' around all this decision making is not helping anyone.
pupils prefer split site, but a new school is definitely needed
I am a resident of St Andrews and a parent of a P2 child intending to attend Madras. After much
consideration it is with a heavy heart that I vote no. Pipelands is 1) in the wrong geographical
location and 2) on designated greenbelt. The second point alone is likely to see legal challenges that
could scupper progress for years, and the children don't have the luxury of time. I understand the
utter desperation felt by parents of secondary (or soon-to-be secondary) aged children who after
years of banging their heads against walls think they are being shown an achievable new school so
much better than the current awful situation. If I thought it stood a reasonable chance of proceeding I
would have voted yes despite believing it to be in the wrong place. The council have, in my fairly well
researched opinion, not shown convincing evidence that rules out other more suitable sites on the
western side of town. Had a fraction of the time and money that has been spent on the PR exercise
for Pipelands been spent on proper evaluation of alternatives, in a PUBLICLY TRANSPARENT
MANNER, we as parents and members of the community could have voted in an informed manner.
It is no use the council's not having done the proper background work and then attempting to bluster,
scare and bully the community into accepting the one - far from ideal - option put before it. The
results of this badly handled affair are tearing the town apart, and Fife Council's actions - along with
those earlier of the University of St Andrews - are responsible.
pupils all prefer split site but understand problem for teachers
most pupils would agree when I say that most of s prefer the split campus but we all agree a new
school is needed. Noise which could disturb the hospital patients. Not enough surrounding shops to
handle the lunch time rush
I think with the new building character is really important.
All things considered this is the best site
I left in 2006, why is there no progress.
Best option
Pipeland is on the wrong side of the town. The school should be sited for the benefit of the majority
of pupils who came from north of the Eden. There has never been a proper assessment of this site.
It will have inferior playing fields to Station Park. Health and Safety considerations - busy street
The site is great as it does not directly effect the residents of St Andrews. Many complaints have
streamed into the school for this reason
just build the school - "please"
It is a shame it is on a green belt
I think there should be a bridgehead school as there are 60% from around that area, and a smaller
school in St Andrews for St Andrews pupils
It would appear that this is the only site available that could accommodate a modern single site
school, which is long overdue. Unelected bodies such as the Preservation Trust and the Community
Council should be discounted.
I would like a brand new school please.
Is a building at the Tay Bridgehead out of the question?
students are loud and it might upset the patients at the hospital
Around about 50% of pupils travel be school bus from the West of St. Andrews - Taybridge head,
Leuchars, Gauldry, Guardbridge etc. Over a period of more than 30 years I have had children and
grandchildren having a very lond day to have their schooling at Madras. Now we have an opportunity
to reduce travelling time, traffic congestion, pollution, emissions and wear and tear on our road
network. Pipelands does nothing towards these aims. We should thoroughly investigate all western
possibilities since in the long term, this is the only practical and sensible solution.Station Park is ideal
since has all the requirements for the school including being council owned. I think it is inexcusable
to reject this location as " There may be Planning problems". Where is the courage of Fife Council,
with all their expertise, to tackle this possible difficulty' However, as a second best, the Pond site is
also suitable. This site may be more expensive in the short term but in the long term, the benefits are
much greater. Go for West!
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Too much focus on sports area, pitches etc to make a real decision most people are only interested
in the school
It's on a hill. State of the art gym facilities would be nice. Theatre + studio.
the new school will bring much needed updated equipment that is required for education today
I have no preference to which site the new school is built on. I am just disgusted to see the lengTh of
time it is taking to come to a decision on this highly important matter. I am fully aware that there are
other concerns with this but to me it seems to be people trying to score political points against each
other when what we desparately need is a school to be built.
Decent football pitch. Put it as close to Wills house as possible. Word of warning then.
Pipeland is on the wrong side of St Andfews to serve most of the catchment efficently. There are
better options for the new Madras on the west of St Andrews that have not been fully and fairly
evaluated.
I think the school would be great but in a different location because it is hard to get to by bus and
would just cause major problems. Plus there is not many options for lunch times other than
Morrisions and Aldi.
I think its an opportunity which should not be missed. It sounds like a good area
parent parking does my head in
I think most senior pupils would agree that they really like having a split site school, and also enjoy
being in the centre of town.
Prefer split site but understand it inconviences teachers.
The plans look great. Think it is the best possible site
about time
I think it is totally unsuitable to be beside the hospital and to have it to cross a main road at lunch
time at Morrisons unless the children are barred from the grounds all breaks. The "pond" site would
mean no buses having to travel through the town causing chaos and congestion.
Should have been further out.
I think the school should be built a s soon as possible.
The school should be built as soon as possible to accommodate all areas of learning.
We have been told since first year and when my brothers where here the same thing
A new better stage/acting area for the Drama department.
Madras should maintain a sense of academic strength despite being out with the immediate area of
the university. Efforts should also be made to honour the unique history and culture of the school
The architecture of design needs to be considered and done well made to last
I would hope that this time the council and the school take thisx proposal seriously as I feel that my
education as been hampered by this "dillying dallying" over the new school. They have been
discussing a "new school" since i was ten. I wish that no other child is handicapped.
The seniors should have separate classrooms from the juniors
Yes but there wasn't any space for comments.
I have lost any interest in what the school want to do
It's far from perfect, but to be honest it's the best we're going to get.
town resident and think keeping all pupils in one area is the best plan
What will you do with the other two schools if you can't knock them down.
I think yes and no you. You can do up both the schools because we won't get to go to South Street it
is such a nice building and if we built it right next to a hospital we might disturb the hospital.
This will probably not happen when I am at school as anyone who is not in first year will not see it.
I also supported the Kilrymont refurb, I just want some progress, this whole process is a disgrace.
Just make a decision and get on with it.
An excellent site which is safe and easily accessible
I choose not to vote, as I believe it wrong to vote on something that won't effect me.
I am a concerned local resident. Given the strong opinions expressed by a number of local residents
in the previous consultation process on Kilrymont, I am concerned that the current "educational
consultation" seems designed to solicit opinions only from those who might be more likely to be in
favour (e.g. parents who are naturally concerned that there should be some speedy resolution,
however imperfect, to the longstanding need to replace current inadequate facilities at Madras),
rather than from the wider community who may well have some different perspectives on the matter.
The Local Plan, which includes the designation of a "green belt" around St Andrews was seemingly
only adopted by Fife Council on 5th October 2012. It is deeply worrying that within such an incredibly
short space of time Fife Council should now be proposing that some parts of this plan should
effectively be ignored. If long-term plans (the designated "green belt" was supposed to last for at
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
least 20 years according to the plan) can be cast aside so rapidly, how can anyone have any
confidence in any of the long-term intentions of or commitments made by Fife Council' I believe that
the opening-up of "green belt" land at Pipeland would only be the precursor to other developments,
all of which would be argued as "special cases", with the effective destruction of the "green belt" in
that area. The lack of detail in current published plans is also worrying. The impression given is that
any potential difficulties with the Pipeland site are being largely glossed over, while conceivable
alternative locations seem to have been dismissed with inadequate consideration or without
adequate explanation of why they are unsuitable. The Pipeland site would offer no solution
whatsoever to a significant long-standing problem - the fact that the majority of potential students
both now and in the future will seemingly be coming from north of the Eden and so would have to
continue to spend an inordinate amount of time in being bussed from their homes to the school. This
would seem to be an incredible waste of time for students, as well as being distinctly
environmentally-unfriendly and costly. If anything, Pipeland would be even worse in this respect than
the current unsatisfactory arrangements as it is on the wrong side of St Andrews for easy access for
most students (or potential community users). Assertions that the access to Pipeland would be better
as it would be via main roads rather tends to ignore the existing traffic bottlenecks of Bridge Street
and City Road in St Andrews which experience suggests are not well-suited to extensive,
concentrated bus traffic. If the totally unsatisfactory parking arrangements at the Community Hospital
are anything to go by, there would likely be considerable ongoing disruption to local residents unless
yet more land were released for new roads and extensive parking facilities. In the past, much was
made of potential links with the University. It is hard to see how the use of Pipeland (again as it is
essentially in the wrong area of St Andrews) could be particularly helpful in that respect. Pipeland
also would seem to be poorly placed for any new school to use the existing (very good) sports
facilities at Station Park. If these were to continue to be used, there would presumably be
considerable (and disruptive) traffic ferrying students back and forth. If they were not to be used,
then there would have to be more extensive sports facilities at Pipeland, necessitating the use of yet
more "green belt" land, and presumably Fife Council would look to sell off the Station Park facilities.
Is this potential sale a key component of the plans for Pipeland'
I write on behalf of the Queen's Garden's and Queen's Terrace Residents Association. We have a
number of serious concerns about the Council's proposal to site the new Madras College at Pipeland
Farm. 1) The Pipeland Farm site is awkwardly located for the majority of pupils - those who live in
the Tay Bridgehead area and to the west of St Andrews. These are the pupils who have the most
difficulty in fully participating in extra curricular activities and have the longest travel times. Being
unable to participate fully in extra curricular activities will have important (negative) educational
consequences. 2) Evening community use will be limited for many prospective users, especially
those from the north and west, unless they own a car, producing and reinforcing social
disadvantage. 3) Planning and environmental issues will impact on the Council's ability to deliver a
replacement school within a reasonable time frame and within budget. 4) Building a school at
Pipelands on the Green Belt would run counter to the newly established Green Belt policy. The
Reporter who conducted the Examination of the St Andrews and North East Fife Local Plan
specifically removed the proposed school development from the Pipelands site because of the
adverse effect this would have in environmental and landscape terms and his recommendations
were incorporated into the Adopted Local Plan 2012. If this area was to be developed, it would have
to defeat three planning policies where in each case there is a presumption against development:
These are (a)Development in the Green Belt, (b)Development outwith the Settlement Envelope (i.e.,
in the Countryside), (c) Development on Prime Agricultural Land. 5) Fife Council appears to have
underestimated the potential cost of developing the Pipelands site, while overemphasizing the
difficulties of building on the so called "Pond Site" on the North Haugh and hence inflated the
estimated cost of building there. We are of the opinion that the Pond Site on the offers many
advantages and such a location is consistent with Fife Council's expressed view that a replacement
school should be located on the west side of the town. 1) Compared to Pipelands, location of the
new school on the North Haugh would: a. reduce journey times for pupils with the longest school day
b. avoid unnecessary bus journeys through the town c. reduce noise and particulate pollution and
reduce CO2 emmisions d. be more accessible for the majority of potential community users 2) Pupils
and community users could take advantage of a frequent public bus service connecting the school
with its major catchment area. This would: a. allow flexible travel for many pupils b. encourage wider
participation in extra-curricular activities and sport c. encourage community use 3) The Reporter
conducting the Local Plan Examination identified a site on the North Haugh, as the preferred site for
the school. This site is shown on the revised plan for Local Plan site STA AO1, and the
recommendation was incorporated into the Adopted Local Plan. 4) This location would also enable
the school's existing sports fields to be used by the pupils, avoiding duplicating these facilities, and
reducing the "land take" required for the school. 5) Location of the replacement school next to the
University, if properly managed, has the potential to deliver important educational benefits.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Conclusions The Council's assessment of the suitability and affordability of the two sites, Pipelands
and North Haugh, has been superficial and hence its recommendations regarding the location of the
replacement school are deeply flawed. The North Haugh site on the western edge of the town is
adjacent to the schools existing sports facilities and well located for those in the school's main
catchment area. Pipelands can clearly be shown to be a poor choice which can only be delivered if
Fife Council can successfully oppose three of its newly established planning policies. As a result, the
Council's proposal will be subject to an extended planning process which could include "calling in" by
Scottish Ministers and possibly a legal challenge. It is unfortunate that the Council has chosen to
disregard a much better site that meets its own criteria in terms of access. Accessibility for pupils
and community users from the catchment area should be a prime consideration in siting the school.
Furthermore, there is a unique opportunity for pupils to benefit educationally by locating the new
school adjacent to the University. Prof Richard Olver Chairman, Queens Gardens and Queen's
Terrace Residents Association
We need a modern building suitable and fit for purpose
please press on as quickly as possible
I believe that the proposal offers teh very best for the future of our children. I think that St Andrews
should have a modern purpose built building for educating the young people in and around St
Andrews.
I would quite like a dancing studio and also nice toilets, air conditioned rooms a bright lighting and
chewing gum banned from school also nice canteen and also a swimming pool
Would 2 smaller secondary schools not be better than one large one? ie one in St. Andrews and one
at Taybridgehead?
Education is fundamental to improve our future.
Why does it take so long? this has gone on and on and on ......
could you please hurry up and decide. This has taken far too long.
Traffic, safety, littering by pupils!
In our view, the Pipeland siting is no improvement over the current situation. Traffic will still go
through the town to reach the Eastern part of St Andrews. We have had to endure the huge bus
traffic twice a day while living at Kilrymont Road. It is uncomfortable for the students and for the
residents. The air pollution from the buses is substantial and might affect the micro-climate of St
Andrews Hospital. Therefore, the shorter the transportation route, the better. Furthermore, the
proposed Pipeland siting is part of or very near to the promised and agreed-upon Green Belt. Please
keep the Green Belt intact. Instead of the Pipeland site, we ask that you please reconsider the North
Haugh siting, which is in the Western part of the town. Traffic would not have to go through the town,
sports facilities are near by and the proximity of university facilities could be a benefit to the students.
It is our understanding that the initial rejection of the "pond site" seems to have been based on
insufficient information and not enough negotiation with the university. Therefore, we strongly urge to
reconsider the "pond site" on North Haugh. Thank you for this opportunity to consult.
Pipeland most suitable site for new school
The cost will be cheaper Pipeland
1. The Pipeland site will be easily accessible to children in the community of St Andrews who will
walk or cycle. If you had the site at North Haugh then the likeliehood will be that the kids will be
driven to school rather than walk/cycle. Yes it is not that far out of town but it will be far enough to not
encourage kids to cycle or walk. 2. The Pipelands site is likely to eliminate footfall on Pipelands road
as pupils (if allowed out) would wander across the road to Morrisons. 3. I would want re-assurance
that the pitches for sports will not be waterlogged. The school I went to was built at the bottom of a
hill. The pitches were constantly waterlogged and no sport took place on them. The pitches at
Lawhead School are constantly waterlogged and my children feel that they are missing out on sports
on the 'pitch' compared to their couterparts at Cannongate. 4. If we delay then it will seriously
damage the reputation of St Andrews for providing a good educational environment. The facilities at
the current schools, especially for sports, are disgusting. A new school, wherever it is built, needs to
be built soon or the money will go elsewhere. It cannot sit in a pot forever. There are too many
'needy' communities out there who need the money. We are one of them but are fast becoming too
picky a community to deserve any cash. 5. If we continue to delay then we will see families of S1
age in two years time seriously considering their future options for their children, ultimately they
could seriously consider whether St Andrews is adequate for their childrens future and families will
move away! Finally. Please Act Quickly - for the sakes of our children's future. Don't act slowly for
the sakes of Heron's, foxes or any other environmental issue that is not that great and that will not
have a major impact on the wildlife of St Andrews or our community. We have beautiful countryside
around us and the Pipeland road site will not change that. Invest in our future not our preservation.
That will take care of itself.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
This is the best site which is deliverable and within budget. It is not fair for the children to delay the
school development just to cater for discussion with the university (about the pond site - which is
expensive to be developed). I believe we must set an objective to deliver the new school in next 3-4
years, as the old Madras is unfit and the discussion about new school has been going on for years. If
we need Scottish Government to intervene, we should pursue that to achieve the aims.
ACCESS AND SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES
I am more concerned to see a new school built soon than with the actual location. I am concerned
that the sensitive location of this site will cause problems and potentially delays when applying for
planning permission but if these can be overcome I would be pleased to see a school on this site.
Poorly positioned for Bridgehead parents and children. Loss of 2 curriculum subjects - swimming and
tennis. Sports facilities limited. Difficulty to access for Bridgehead community use.
This is my second comments. I want to suggest that new Madras school development include a
prayer room for Muslim boys and girls with ablution facility to help them practise their daily religious
need.
I'm glad there will be a new school because the old school is horrible.
Having been educated in the old 2 site Bell Baxter I strongly feel that a single site built for purpose
school is the only way forward for education. Pupils greatly benefit from a positive environment and
parents and pupils would be more strongly invested in a new purpose built school.
Bad site. Green belt. Traffic congestion too close to local hospital.
Very poor location
Put the education of the pupils at the top of the agenda - they are the ones who are disadvantaged
by all the delays and argument. Just build the school as soon as!!!
Build it as soon as possible. No further delays.
1. Details of the proposed new school are inadequate. Many of the questions at consultation
meetings could not be answered by Council representatives and, in many cases, still have not been
provided. The consultation should be extended to permit fuller consideration of these details when
they are provided. 2. The site of the new school is inconvenient for the majority of school users, most
of whom live well to the north and west of St Andrews. 3. It will disadvantage the less well-off who
are reliant on school buses or public transport. The site is not easily accessible by bicycle from the
main catchment areas. 4. Many pupils and other school leavers will be faced with unnecessarily long
and tiring journeys. 5 Transport difficulties will make it harder for pupils to take part in out-of-school
activities. 6 Sports facilities will have to be on split sites because the new site is too small for the
existing full range of activities and it will take several years for new playing fields to bed in, especially
with the excavation and drainage problems expected on this site. 7 Provision for vehicular and
pedestrian access is inadequate, with access being shared with the hospital. 8 Assuming that pupils
will not be confined to the school grounds during breaks, no provision has been made for large
numbers of pupils to access nearby shops safely. 9 With the hospital adjacent to the school, pupils
will be constrained to keep very quiet to avoid upsetting patients, some of whom are dying. 10. Since
there is no plan for the school that is specific to Madras at Pipeland (only the plan for Dunfermline), it
is impossible to state whether the layout and facilities of the school are conducive to good education.
11 There has been no proper site assessment, and it is impossible to take a view of the difficulty of
overcoming many of the obvious technical problems concerning this site, eg the massive excavation
required for level playing fields, the rainwater drainage from neighbouring fields, proper pedestrian
and vehicular access including turning and waiting areas for buses, safe access to nearby shops).
The timescale and cost of delivering a school on this site cannot be predicted with reasonable
confidence. 12 Equally, the myriad of planning obstacles may cause long delays to the delivery date.
I hope this proposal will consider all aspects of this proposed build to ensure a quality building and
quality surroundings (ie car park, staff car park, taxi collection and drop off point) better canteen
facilities and hopefully an eco/environmental built school for generations of young people.
Need large teaching/practical rooms and plenty of them. Need Much improved entrances/exits onto
main roads, etc..
1- The Pipeland site is on the wrong side of town for the distribution of the catchment. 2- The
Pipeland site will necessitate a large number of bus journeys through an already congested St
Andrews. 3- The Pipeland site is in the recently designated Green Belt. 4- The Pipeland site is
sloping and contains the old waterworks. 5- Building on the Pipeland site will aggravate the periodic
flooding already badly affecting houses in Scooniehill Road. 4- What's in it for the Muir Group' If the
Green Belt is breached, there will be precedent established to allow Muir Group further development
of the Green Belt. 6- The Pipeland site is only 72% of the area of the combined Pond Site and
existing playing fields at Station Park. 6 - "Playing field provision at the Pipeland site will be
comparable with that at Kilrymont"; but Kilrymont is only half the present Madras roll. That represents
a considerable diminution in provision. 7- Educational cooperation with the university will be much
easier of the establishments are adjacent as a site such as the Pond site would deliver. 8 - The
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
Pipeland site's proximity to Morrison's would provide an ever-present temptation for pupils to forego
healthy lunch options provided in school and waste time better spent in extra-curricular activities.
Inappropriate because a) site is within newly designated Green Belt; b) requires bussing of pupils
through centre and/or residential streets; c) too much noise next to hospital; d) new playing fields (on
sloping hillside'') would make Station Park redundant.
The Headmaster and Fife Council officers at the Kilrymont meeting of 12 February were unable to
state any examples of why Pipeland Farm would offer any educational benefits over other sites in
the locality of St Andrews; Failure to exploit the world-class facilities of the University of St Andrews Fife Council, in seeking the lowest common denominator in educational standards offered to pupils
from this catchment area of North-East Fife could not have selected a site further from any part of
the University campus thus minimising the opportunity for collaboration on teaching, research and
sports provision and destroying the ethos of Dr Andrew Bell's Madras system of education;
Acknowledged at the above meeting that no site surveys had been conducted to understand how the
site could be developed: given it was assessed and rejected, previously, by Fife Council as
unsuitable; there is no practical road access to the site as the hospital road has not been adopted by
the Council and congestion on the existing road would limit entry to the hospital for emergencies and
patients; the need to remove / replace (unknown) existing water services infrastructure on the site; a
requirement to provide a right-of-way through the proposed site; how to prevent flooding which has
inundated neighbouring residential properties (e.g. Lamberton Place / Jamie Anderson Place); how
to engineer outdoor sports playing fields on a steeply sloping hillside without them becoming a
regular muddy swamp; Impossible to know what the effect on the school roll will be with the closure
of RAF Leuchars and, consequently, a potential waste of the Council's Education budget to incur
expenditure until the details are clarified by the Ministry of Defence; Failure by Fife Council to
provide for the safe, duty-of-care of pupils outside the school perimeter as access to the school will
be by a road in constant use by emergency vehicles and commercial bus operators, and access for
the majority of local pupils, and all pupils to the nearest retail outlet (Morrisons supermarket), is
across a busy primary route (A915); Location of Pipeland Farm requires excessive time, and
expense in transportation contracts, travelling on buses for the majority of the school roll who live
north of St Andrews; Failure by Fife Council to reduce carbon emissions by having to transport the
majority of the school roll, who live north of St Andrews, through the town centre and out beyond the
southern boundary; Failure to provide acceptable outdoor sports facilities or access to a swimming
pool for school or community use.
The current building's are a disgrace, the council need to get started building now!
If Pipeland site goes ahead, what happens to Station Park' If Station Park goes, there are not
enough pitches for community use as well as extra-curricular. 16 busses still have to make their way
through St. Andrews.
Still too many unanswered questions about the site, I don't believe the Council that this will be the
quickest option. Even the map on your website is not the same as the out of date aerial photo shown
at the Kilrymount meeting. I have lost trust in the prominent councillors involved
St. Andrews needva new school. Although site not perfect, it's the best there is.
To incorporate all secondary school pupils into the one site will be conducive for an increase in
inclusivity &, therefore, integrity, ie, older pupils establishing responsible behaviour. Teaching staff
will have increased time directly with pupils, as a result of not having to incorporate travel & parking
time, between the two sites. Having one site will overall, reduce running costs.
I have today sent a hard copy of a letter and comment on the Madras proposal to your office via
internal mail from the St Andrews Area office. If you would also wish to have an electronic copy of
this six page document, I would be happy to send this to you if you would kindly provide an email
address. Yours sincerely, David Middleton for the Confederation of St Andrews Residents
Associations.
I can only hope that sense will prevail and people will start thinking what is right and moral. This is
our children's future at stake, and their future is yours. To put selfish and self interest at the heart of
any decision is wrong. I would make the same decision whether I had children or not. Please do not
like another generation of children miss the education they deserve.
As a former pupil of Madras, I recall the lack of teaching supervision which the current split site
produced. Clearly the need for a single site is urgently required.
We would prefer a Taybridgehead School for our 54% commuting children (which isnt cost effective,
safe or environmentally friendly) and a smaller Madras to house the remaining 48% from the local
area.
The debate has been hijacked by nimbys and people without school age children. Build at Pipelands
please!
I recognise that the location is not ideal for children who live in the Tay Bridgehead area, but I accept
the Council's position that there is no viable site for the northwest side of St Andrews. Therefore I
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
strongly recommend that the Council works closely with transport providers to ensure that bus travel
to the new site is as efficient and as cheap as possible, and available through the day.
I am frustrated by the prevarication over this decision. A ' 'quality' school in St Andrews is
undoubtedly a key part of a family's decision making process in deciding to locate there. The lack of
one is nothing to do with the efforts of all the staff and pupils to overcome the adversity they face in
being able to deliver and experience high quality learning and teaching. This has been going on too
long.... Planning, community council. Elected officials - how can you be proud of your legacy in this
issue. The episode is disgraceful and is likely to be judged so by our descendants. As a parent of
two children who attend/ed this school - and for the sake of others following; the morale of the staff;
the local amenity; the reputation of the town; the impact on the local economy please sort it out!
Why on earth are you considering building a single site in StAndrews when there are a large number
of pupils travelling over 30mins to attend school there''' This is a ridiculous situation and can't
understand why the obvious solution for the good of people in the area is not the preferred solution.
Build a School in the Tayport/Newport area to serve Tayport, Newport, Gauldry, balmulo, St
Michaels (possible include as far as Leuchars, a distance down A92 and a distance up the Tay)
which is a good sized catchment are and mean most pupils in the are would have under 10min to get
to school. The size of catchment would mean a large number of pupils would go to this new school
leaving Madras a smaller size which would mean South Street site can still be sold and the whole
school 1st - 6th year can go to school at the single remaining site of Kilrymont. SURELY meeting the
needs of pupils spending over 1hr a day travelling just to attend high school would be better met
providing a local school (and as the new Tay based school wouldn't need to be as large as a single
site St Andrews one it would be considerably cheaper to build. Please reconsider and re-think this
plan for the good of north fife.
This is not the right location for current or future generations of pupils. This has become a personal
project of individual councillors who have some kind of agenda and have lost sight of the bigger
picture
This has gone on long enough! We've had consultation after consultation. Please just build our
children a decent school in one decent location. Stop talking, start doing.
1. It is unthinkable that, having finally designated a much needed and long overdue Green Belt for St
Andrews, that the council should even consider breaching the Local Plan. 2. The projected financial
costs of both Pipeland and Pond sites appear to be shrouded in mystery. Surely the council cannot
consider proceeding with either site without giving a full explanation of the likely costs. 3 The
announcement from HM Government this week that Leuchars airbase is to receive an unknown
number of Army families whose children will require school places, must materially affect the present
consultation. If large numbers of secondary pupils will need transport to St Andrews, then the Pond
site would be the obvious choice, precluding the need to buses to travel through St Andrews. 4
Having considered the various arguments for and against the Pipeland proposal I am firmly of the
opinion that the council should reject the the application and take a second and serious look at the
Pond Site which has so many attributes. 5.The Pipeland application is most likely to be 'called in,'
further delaying the building of a much needed secondary school for St Andrews. 6 It should be
noted that sampling the views of current Madras parents would seem to be wishful thinking on their
part. Most if not all the current pupils will have left school before the replacement is completed.
I need a school to be ready for me to go into when I leave primary school. If this does not happen
now, there will be no chance of it being ready when I reach high school age. Going to a High School
should be an exciting time, a time to learn new things in a school designed for my future.
This seems like a great location as it is close to town still but on its own campus.
NO RUSH FOR A BAD LOCATION: Regardless of how much time Fife Council has wasted on this
(8 plus years) this decision will affect Taybridge Head children for 50 plus years. So we are not all in
a rush for a school in the wrong location. COMMUTE IS TOO FAR: A commute of the same or
longer than now for the Taybridgehead is UNACCEPTABLE. A long commute is a disadvantage for
the children who commute. INACCESSIBLE FOR CHILDREN AND PARENTS: Despite ideas that
the bus companies will alter timetables, this option is unacceptable for the children or parents who
have to travel to and from school during the day on public transport. Tardiness, doctors'
appointments, parents called to the school for child illness or problems all would continue to have
problems travelling to the school particularly for the poor or those without a car. ARGUMENTS FOR
SINGLE SITE: The use of the term single site comes from the merger of the current split school site
and now following a consultant on the need for a school in the Taybridgehead. Even if the arguments
had been about a bigger school gives more choice this is outdated thinking. Yes choice can be
improved by having a bigger school but you have no figures or studies to show the scale of the
problem and you would most probable consign generations of children to commute for the sake of a
few that want minority subjects. Merger of Madras and Bell Baxter Management together with a new
site in the Taybridgehead would save money, increase choice and exploitation technology would
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
develop this even further. COMMUNITY USE: I am angry that my taxpayers money will be used on a
school where you argue that it is for my community use. St Andrews has many facilities,
Taybridgehead does not. I cannot use or benefit from this community use and yet we have to raise
funds for the alternative facilities for Tayport, Newport and Wormit. Frankly I have had enough and
will campaign to unseat all our Councillors at the next election if this project goes ahead. CLOSER
SCHOOLS: Taybridgehead children on the whole commute further to Madras than it would take to
travel to any school in the Dundee City Council control. If you can't build a school in the
Taybridgehead then negotiate with Dundee. MINISTRY OF DEFENCE PLANS: 150 Children
currently come from RAF Leuchars. The Army is most probably going to be similar numbers, but
regular Army demographics are very different. RAF are normally aged 22 to 55 for the type of unit,
the Army will be aged 18 to 40 (only senior officers will be older), more RAF personnel leave their
family in their original home area, most Army take their family from base to base. Expect double the
number of children on secondary school age than that number of the RAF i.e. closer to 300. Whilst
there will be a gap of one or two years between RAF departure and Army full strength, you have
exceeded the capacity of the new Madras already. 60 M pounds for infrastructure for this MOD plan,
get some of it for a school and build TWO smaller schools in North East Fife, one in St Andrews one
in the Taybridgehead. TAYBRIDGEHEAD IS NOT REMOTE: During this consultation the meetings
and communication have used arguments and examples from the remotest of areas in Scotland.
Taybridgehead is not remote, 50% of the catchment comes from the Taybridgehead with half of
these again coming from the Tayport, Newport, Wormit area. 8000 people live in the Tayport,
Newport, Wormit area all within 10 to 15 minutes of Dundee City centre. CORRUPTION: The logic
and arguments for the pipelines site does not make sense. Why pay for a site when Fife Council or
the state own so many other sites throughout the catchment area. There are rumours of the
relationships between the current owner of the site and the Councillors involved in these decisions. I
will be calling for an investigation into these rumours if this project goes ahead.
The Pipeland site is on green belt land and as further (in my view) more suitable site exists on the
North Haugh, it should not even be up for consideration. The North Haugh site would be much less
disruptive to traffic, more attractive to pupils and staff alike and closer to the University, to the
wonderful playing fields at Station Park, and to the town centre and away from the hospital which
should remain a peaceful and quiet spot.
My personal preference would have been to build the new school at the Tay Bridge site, so much
less bussing would be required and to restore the beautiful buildings of South Street for a much
smaller secondary school for St Andrews.
This on-going ping-pong match about which of the possible and various sites for the future Madras
replacement has gone on, in its current form, long enough. Each time and each week that one
opens ‘The Citizen’ or ‘The Courier’ it appears to be yet another site that is the chosen spot. In the
interest of the education of children at this state school/s, this situation has to stop right now.
A new method and way forward has to be reach, and it seems it cannot be reached by the current
methods of various groups and committees, as has been the case for several weeks, years and
possibly decades. It is essential, in my view that a new approach to the problem be arrived at. I
would suggest that somehow a hierarchical person or persons be appointed to review the entire
evidence. If several people this could be a Reporter, a planner, an Educational specialist, and/or a
lay person. Alternatively, a legal review might be suggested as well. The person or persons would
need to be acceptable to the majority and the decision that he/she they make, would need to
binding. As far as I am aware, this current situation is without precedent in Scotland.
I am a St Andrean born and bred and a former pupil of Madras College. In my opinion the land
fought for green belt recently designated, is certainly not the place for the new school or any
development, and the already seriously congested large road leading to the hospital, supermarket
etc., is not suitable pr capable of coping with the very heavy extra bus and traffic the new school
required, and it would be very dangerous for pupils on foot.
1. School buses are not a problem – the Pipelands site therefore the buses will not go into the
centre of St Andrews – only along the largo road.
2. School pupils will be able to purchase their morning break requirements, also lunch, from
Morrisons supermarket
3. St Andrews needs pupils in its shops to keep the economy of the town viable
4. The pond site is actually the flood plain of the Swilcan River, it has been proved recently by
environmentalists that any building on a flood plain exacerbates flooding and we have come
VERY HIGH TIDES at times – hence the flooding of the Strathrym and the Eden golf
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
courses.
5. Sewage drainage is a huge problem all along the properties on the Links Road etc.
6. It would be a Hideous entrance to our town – just look at what is proposed for the student
union building
Just because the ‘pressure groups’ want the pond site does not mean should get it. Want and get
are modern mantras
Well done Fife Council Education Department – stick to your guns for Pipeland Road
The pipeland site comes a clear second to the pond site in ease of access for incoming pupils from
outwith town. In its lack of proximity to the school playing field and as a generator of additional heavy
traffic in the vicinity of two other major traffic generators – the hospital and Morrisons. Muir’s interest
in the council’s opting for their site in the Green Belt is the ‘elephant in the room’ and needs a
thorough investigation, as does the council’s dismissal of the obvious advantages of the pond site
through spurious argument unsupported by empirical analysis. Their reliance on the mantra that a
new school is overdue, as an argument in favour of their preferred site, is facile and does not reflect
well on either their methodlogy in comparing the merits and demerits of the two options or indeed on
the handling of the whole question of the need for a new school in a historic context
For the council to be the first to advocate flouting their own recent decision to include the long fought
green belt in their own local plan makes a mockery of local government.
To advocate building a very large school next to a hospital is unsuitable.
The consequent stream of pupils crossing the road and ‘swamping’ Morissons at breaktimes is
unsuitable.
As someone who has spent a lifetime teaching, albeit in the independent sector, the ideal solution is
one that has already been rejected. Two schools, land at the bridgehead would be very much
cheaper than land in the St Andrews area, there would be an enormous saving over buses when
more than half the pupils have to be bussed in to St Andrews , it is a crazy situation
The South St building is historic and aesthetically pleasing, no independent school would cast it
aside but would value it and repair the fabric. There is a large 20th century addition which can be
made suitable to scientific and technological subjects.
Large is not always better, smaller means the staff and head can get to know pupils individually, and
any teaching og ‘unusual’ subjects can be achieved by a scheme of sharing between schools – even
sometimes between state & independent sectors.
If more than 60% of pupils come by bus these pupils deserve a school in the North of Fife which
would cut the cost of transport for the council and reduce the journey time for pupils which may affect
their ability to learn.
The south Street site in St Andrews would accommodate the southern end of the catchment and the
modern buildings should be replaced and the swimming pool refurbished.
Building on site is contrary to the local plan and in the wrong place to give any reduction in bussing
Land designated green belt, it will bring more and very intrusive development in the green belt to
south of St Andrews. A very special feature of St Andrews is that the southern development is
BELOW the eye line from the old town
Light pollution would be an additional drawback.
The buses would still have to come through the centre of St Andrews with associated problems with
traffic on City Road, west port & Largo Road.
Families now tend to live west of Pipeland Road. The housing area (former council houses) are now
mainly student accommodation.
A far better site for the school would be at Craigtoun. It is already owned by the council is currently
redundant and becoming run down and neglected. It is adjacent to the area where families actually
live and would avoid buses having to come through St Andrews at all. If it led to an upgrading of a
western by-pass road for St Andrews this would be a HUGE BENEFIT to the town.
I believe that the Pipeland site should remain a greenbelt area
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
I am concerned about the local impact of a new single site school, increased litter problems,
imtimidatory nature of ‘waves’ of students on pavements and increased ‘seagull problems’ for locals
The ‘chaos that will be caused for locals and the community hospital authorities by trying to get
heavy machinery to and from the site
I live close to the proposed site hence my three comments above. Also I enjoy the countryside and
walking my dog in the greenbelt area so I feel it should remain a greenbelt area
This site is in the green belt, bussing to and from school and from school to their sportsground during
the day will seriously increase traffic through the town. There is a great need for more housing to be
built for young families, this will inevitably mean more children in Tayside and St Andrews. One
school will not suffice. Two schools should be built one on Tayside and one on the North Haugh. The
Tayside children are being forced to commute to their detriment.
I am retired teacher who has experienced the building o a new secondary school to replace a split
site and the introduction of ‘temporary classrooms’ on the new site within a few years of opening
when the demand for places increased.
I agree with the St Andrews Community Council (letter Citizen 1.3.13) that the proposed school
would be educationally second-rate in the terms that Fife Council itself has spelt out in previous
years. Since it was to be the proximity to the University that was to be important.
A large school is not necessarily best for pupils, especially when a large proportion is being bussed
for miles every day. Ten years ago there were proposals for a Tay Bridgehead school as well as
Madars. Pupils at the Tay Bridgehead could have links with Dundee University in the same way that
Madras could have links with St Andrews University.
Pipeland is on the wrong site of St Andrews, both for links with the University, and for pupils being
bussed to school.
The Community Council referred to the excellent “superbly drained level pitches at Station Park” in
addition apparently the new school at Pipeland would not have a swimming pool.
There are no obvious educational benefits to a school built on the proposed Pipeland site. The
(apparently) poor condition of the Madras building must be the responsibility of Fife Council.
As the Community Council States, there are strong planning arguments against the Pipeland site.
Whereas the North Haugh site is in accord with the Development Plan, the Pipeland site is
significantly contrary to the Development Plan. “The green belt designation implements the
proposal for a green belt in the Fife Structure Plan which continue to be supported by the new
strategic development plan for the area, TAYplan”. (“Site options for a replacement Madras College,
Fife Council 4 December 2012. Agenda item No. 5)
Personally, I would be very sorry to see pupils move from the Madras South Street building, and
regret that there appears to be no option now for a secondary school at the Tay Bridgehead in
addition to Madras, St Andrews
In my opinion the letter to the Citizen (1.3.13) from St Andrews Community Council encapsulates
most of the arguments against building the school at Pipeland. And it points out that, in terms of
what Fife Council itself said in previous years, that the proximity to the University was of overriding
importance, the proposed school would be educationally second-rate.
What real advantage would a large school be for pupils, especially when it would entail bussing a
large proportion for several miles each day? Ten years ago when there were proposals for two
smaller schools, a Tay Bridgehead school as well as Madras, it was shown that pupils at the Tay
Bridgehead could have links with Dundee University in the same way that Madras could have links
with St Andrews University. However, Pipeland is on the wrong side of St Andrews for links with the
University. It is also on the wrong side of the town in terms of bussing pupils to school.
There are no obvious educational benefits to a school built on the proposed Pipeland site. But here
are excellent “superbly drained level pitches at Station Park” referred to by the Community Council.
What is more, apparently the new, ‘iconic’ school at Pipeland would not even have a swimming pool.
As the Community Council States, there are strong planning arguments against the Pipeland site;
the North Haugh site is in accord with the Development Plan, whereas the Pipeland site is
significantly contrary to the Development Plan.
Comments received (ether online or on paper consultation form) APPENDIX 3
1. After many years of consideration and negotiation a GREEN BELT was achieved some months
ago a this site.
2. Wrong side of town – pollution and noise – bad carbon footprint at this site.
3. Noise all day with buses (early morning and mid afternoon) with pupils/arriving and
departing/sport. This noise will be heard in the hospital where there are ill and ageing patients –
surely they deserve peace and tranquillity not shouting kids.
4. In any emergency within the town, with access to hospital immediately needed – what if it was
9.00 am, 12.30 or 3.15 what a clash with Madras!!!
5.
Also part of (3) noise toeing and froing to Morrisons – nightmare!
1,
Development on Green Belt should only be considered where there is no other suitable site.
The North Haugh site is a viable and pretuable alternative.
2.
The Pipeland site perpetuates the problem of “bussing” whereas the North Haugh site would
alleviate that need.
3.
To build as large a secondary school in such close proximity to the Community Hospital/Health
Centre seems an absurd proposal for obvious reasons on pedestrian and traffic congestion in
particular.
Pipeland Road site actually unsuitable – in Green Belt, expensive to provide adequate level ground
for school and plying fields and adequate drainage for site and surrounding/downslope areas,
inadequate access and congestion on hospital site and busy roundabout; disruption of hospital
activities with pupils going through hospital grounds on way to Morrisons, inadequate pedestrial
facilities crossing road at Morrisons. Wrong location in relation to catchment area with excessive
bussing of pupils from NE Fife – bad for pupils with needless long journeys bad for the environment
(think GREEN, traffic congestion all the way from North Haugh and Pipeland several times each day.