Material |
Giffnock Primary Parent Council Response to the Formal Consultative Document
Loganswell Stopping the Loganswell Waste Incinerator Proposal:
Shortly before Christmas 2010, ‘Lifetime Recycling Village Ltd’, a new enterprise formed by businessman Brian Kilgour announced that it had submitted a scoping report to the Scottish Government. Brian Kilgour is also the Managing Director of a separate company called Lifetime Recycling Ltd. The purpose of the report was to initiate the national planning process under Section 36 of Electricity Act 1989 in order to obtain permission to construct the largest waste to energy and recycling centre in Europe. This to some extent by-passes the local authority planning process, although it does provide for objection by “interested parties” such as the Local Authority, local interest groups et al. and must still comply with local and national regulations on planning and emissions. The new £640 million facility will cover 27 hectares (equivalent to 27 international rugby pitches and almost six times the size of the new Southern General superhospital). It is to be constructed at Loganswell Farm, which is purported to be designated for green energy projects and is three miles from Mearns Cross. It is intended to process at least 1.5 million tonnes of solid commercial and domestic waste taken from the 11 nearest Local Authority areas in central and southern Scotland. The waste will be processed through a conventional recycling stage (removing non-organic waste glass, metals and the like). Recycled waste will initially be recycled offsite, but is intended that on-site waste management companies and manufacturers will join the venture, making this a complete recycling facility with virtually no offsite removal other than recycled products. In accordance with current limits, some 370,000 Tonnes of waste per annum will be taken for thermal treatment at the facilty. This particular thermal treatment process is generally described as a combined process of gasification and plasma pyrolysis. The main product will be syngas (consisting mainly of Hydrogen (80%), Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide and Methane). A product of the gasification and pyrolysis stages is a stabilised vitreous product capable of use as construction materials and a small remnant (1.5%) of unusable material that would be sent to landfill. This syngas will be used to generate around 100MW of electricity in a conventional power station consisting of a boiler and steam turbine which in turn will power the site with the excess being sold on to the National Grid. The project had been presented as a “green” “village” and an ideal counterpart to the Whitelees Wind Farm. LRV’s website states that the project will create 1,000 jobs, although its media release and letters to residents put the figure at 700. Job totals in excess of 2000 are quoted for the region as a result of downstream manufacturing potential. The local community is told that the facility will provide significant benefits, including a £250,000 annual community fund and a visitor centre. Local residents will be given an opportunity to specify the exterior and roofing finish of the structures that make up the ‘village’. Local media reports indicated Brian Kilgour’s interest in Loganswell Farm as far back as 2008 and site investigations were understood to have taken place at that time. East Renfrewshire’s planners indicated they had no knowledge of any proposal at that time, although an e-mail from Willy Findlater of LRV dated 4th January 2011 stated that “East Renfrewshire Council is already fully aware of the proposals.” 2. Context The EU has identified and enshrined in law, the guiding principles for Waste Management. A fundamental principle in these objectives is the ’Waste Hierarchy’. This is shown below but can be summarised as “Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.” Each member state is expected to establish its own response to these directives. As can be seen, energy recovery is second to last in the preferred strategies for dealing with waste. Under a 1999 EU directive, all member states must reduce the amount waste buried in landfill sites by 25% of the 1995 levels by 2010, 50% by 2014 and 65% by 2020. Scottish authorities are nowhere near achieving these targets and the outcome at UK level will be penalties imposed by the EU which could be as much as £180 million a year. The Scottish Government undertook public consultation in 2009 on its ambition to create a ‘Zero Waste Plan’ for the country. Consequently a draft plan was prepared in June 2010 and second stage consultation concluded on 7th January 2011. The plan aims to achieve: The Government’s vision is for: The plan will introduce a long term target of 70% recycling for all waste arising in Scotland by 2025. In addition, the Scottish Government will: Encourage and support investment in innovative resource management technologies and will support the utilisation of renewable energy generated from resource management facilities, thereby contributing to Scotland's renewable energy targets. In relation to waste management facilities and waste to energy projects specifically, the plan refers to the following: Identifying Potential Waste Management Sites: Modern waste management infrastructure is designed and regulated to high standards and is similar to other industrial processes. Subject to detailed site specific considerations, waste management facilities can be considered appropriate for sites allocated in development plans for employment and industrial use. Development plans must safeguard all active and consented waste management sites and identify appropriate locations for all waste management facilities, where possible on specific sites or supported by a policy framework to facilitate development. Every effort should be made to ensure that proposed waste management facilities for all wastes are consistent with neighbouring local authority approaches in order to provide adequate capacity. Where local authorities are working singly or in collaboration to address their waste responsibilities, this may be discharged in the development plan or through joint development plan approaches, with site allocations informed by evidence on waste data flows in and out of the plan area. The following locational criteria should be considered by planning authorities and developers when identifying and assessing sites for waste management facilities to ensure that they support waste infrastructure investment and are in the most appropriate locations. More detailed guidance will be provided in PAN 63. Potential suitable sites for waste management activities include: Links to Transport Infrastructure Impact on Environment Heat and Power Use The existing plan included the following targets: • Stop the growth in municipal waste by 2010 Flowing down from the Zero Waste Plan, each local authority singly, or in sensible collaboration with nearby authorities, must establish a strategy for their area as part of Local Development Plans. East Renfrewshire’s Plan is currently at an advanced stage, with the adoption of the Plan expected in February 2011. It is clear that there are some adjustments required to align with the Zero Waste Plan but these may be just cosmetic in nature. A key element of the current draft is the land allocation within the council area. This clearly shows that Loganswell area is not only Green Belt but bounded by “Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation” and “Special Scientific Interest”. The actual space is also designated as potential site fro renewable energy, but in this context specifically states “Windfarms”. On the face of it, the Loganswell site would appear to conflict with many of the national and local criteria set out above, particularly in relation to siting of the facility. It is safe to say that Scotland’s performance against national waste targets has been disappointing. Municipal waste has continued to grow at the level of 1% per year and few local authorities have made sufficient progress with their recycling targets. Notably, East Renfrewshire is seen as one of the best at the moment. Glasgow City in particular has very serious problems. Its only landfill site at Cathkin Braes is almost at capacity. The Polmadie waste facility contains an incinerator which no longer meets current operating standards and is due for replacement. As the Evening Times revealed in November 2010, Glasgow is seeking a private partner to help it dispose of and annual total 150,000 tonnes of residual waste after recycling, in a contract that may be worth £100 million. Options to site waste to energy facilities within the city boundary, including on the Polmadie site, have met strong local residential and political opposition. Local representatives have actually argued that such facilities should be located outside of the city. As with other local authorities, the headache can only get worse for Glasgow City by 2014. On 1st April 2010, landfill tax paid by councils rose to £48 per tonne. This will increase by £8 per tonne each year to 2014/15. Heat and Power Use The existing plan included the following targets: • Stop the growth in municipal waste by 2010 Flowing down from the Zero Waste Plan, each local authority singly, or in sensible collaboration with nearby authorities, must establish a strategy for their area as part of Local Development Plans. East Renfrewshire’s Plan is currently at an advanced stage, with the adoption of the Plan expected in February 2011. It is clear that there are some adjustments required to align with the Zero Waste Plan but these may be just cosmetic in nature. A key element of the current draft is the land allocation within the council area. This clearly shows that Loganswell area is not only Green Belt but bounded by “Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation” and “Special Scientific Interest”. The actual space is also designated as potential site fro renewable energy, but in this context specifically states “Windfarms”. On the face of it, the Loganswell site would appear to conflict with many of the national and local criteria set out above, particularly in relation to siting of the facility. It is safe to say that Scotland’s performance against national waste targets has been disappointing. Municipal waste has continued to grow at the level of 1% per year and few local authorities have made sufficient progress with their recycling targets. Notably, East Renfrewshire is seen as one of the best at the moment. Glasgow City in particular has very serious problems. Its only landfill site at Cathkin Braes is almost at capacity. The Polmadie waste facility contains an incinerator which no longer meets current operating standards and is due for replacement. As the Evening Times revealed in November 2010, Glasgow is seeking a private partner to help it dispose of and annual total 150,000 tonnes of residual waste after recycling, in a contract that may be worth £100 million. Options to site waste to energy facilities within the city boundary, including on the Polmadie site, have met strong local residential and political opposition. Local representatives have actually argued that such facilities should be located outside of the city. Another of the main problems in trying to assess the effectiveness technically and commercially of waste to energy schemes is that most of the available information comes from enterprises that are either operating such facilities or propose to do so – there are few independent or dispassionate sources of information. Additionally, regulators freely admit that their criteria and methods for measurement of the environmental performance of waste to energy systems are currently not up to scratch. LRV has been at pains to point out that Loganswell will not include “mass burn incineration.” This is misleading. Plasma arc and comparable technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, are all defined as incineration by the European Union and the US Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, since Loganswell would undertake incineration, and given the sheer quantity of material that would be accepted at the site, the process can only be described as “mass burn incineration” on an industrial scale.
LRV state that they are aiming to have the Loganswell incinerator up and running by 2014 – conveniently coinciding with top rate increases in landfill taxes. By deduction, sod cutting and construction would have to commence by early 2012 at the very latest, which suggests LRV hope to go through all consultations and formal planning procedures in the course of this year. LRV submitted their scoping document to the Scottish Government in November/December 2010. They are now required under Section 36 to initiate local public consultation before preparing a formal planning proposal for the Scottish Government – they have indicated that consultation will be underway by February 2011. Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 they will be required to complete the following: • Scoping opinion with statutory consultees such as SNH and SEPA In terms of the actual construction of the incinerator, there are certain problems that may make this difficult. Most of the specialist builders who could take on large scale projects like this either are or will be engaged on work for the New Southern General and the Commonwealth Games. At UK level, there are also other major infrastructure projects underway, including preparation for the 2012 London Olympics. This suggests that LRV may have to bring in contractors from Europe or further afield to have a chance of completing the project on schedule, which somewhat undermines their job creation claims. It is also worth noting that the Peterborough waste to energy facility, which LRV cite as an example, was fitted out and equipped through a contract with a Malaysian company. However, there may be reasons why LRV might only wish to concentrate on securing planning permission and they may actually be unconcerned with any of the construction and logistical problems that follow. 5. A Closer Look at LRV No company can claim to have experience of developing plasma arc incineration on the scale proposed for Loganswell. However, a brief review of the CVs of the Directors of LRV reveal that, with one possible exception, none of them have had any experience whatsoever with this type of technology before, nor any other form of processing on this scale. Financial reports on LRV reveal that it has next to no capitalisation and certainly not the £640 million needed to build the incinerator. It is also apparent that Brian Kilgour’s other business interests have high levels of debt. Currently gate prices for waste range from £60-£90 per Tonne or around £110 million per year in revenue from waste receipt alone. Expansion and leasing to other waste management specialists and manufactures within the “village” represents another significant revenue stream. Even taking out the initial capital outlay, and ongoing operations costs, these developments represent a huge pot of gold for waste operators. Ultimately, this comes from us either as consumers or Council/Income Tax payers. So, we not only suffer the consequences of the development, but we actually pay for the privilege. The following conclusions can be reached: • To achieve the financial backing necessary, LRV will have to attract investment from third parties However, it may not be LRV’s intention to raise the capital needed. We can speculate that there may be three other possibilities: • LRV may simply be a ‘local’ front for a global waste management player, essentially contracted to use ‘native’ skills and knowledge to get the proposal through the initial planning stages
Whatever the case, there are two clear messages for the local community: • The best opportunity to get the Loganswell project stopped is during the earliest planning stages. 6. Implications for Newton Mearns and the Southside LRV claim the incinerator would be well away from “built up areas” and that traffic impact would be managed. This is disingenuous in the extreme. The largest such facility in Europe will most certainly have very serious impacts on this community: • Loganswell is only a few minutes from Mearns Cross • Another significant portion of our green belt will be lost forever. LRV’s comparisons between Loganswell and the Whitelees Wind Farm are specious: the latter when superseded can be removed and the landscape re-instated – if the incinerator closes the farm land will remain lost to us and quite possibly will be contaminated So, who actually benefits? LRV obviously makes money one way or another. Local authorities and commercial interests get a quick short-term fix for their waste management problems. That’s it. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by this community or by residents in neighbouring areas. At national level, a facility like Loganswell might actually set recycling targets back by causing more material that could be recycled to be burned to make the incinerator viable. Examples of this are already evident in Dumfries and Galloway. Absolutely nothing would be achieved in minimising generation of waste in the first place, or in reducing energy and natural resources used in its creation. In short, LRV is simply making use of a ‘green flag of convenience’ as a moral argument to try and get around planning regulations and the objections of residents. 7. Designing a Campaign This is probably the most serious issue ever to threaten the wellbeing of Newton Mearns and neighbouring communities in East Renfrewshire and Glasgow. The response to this level of threat requires co-ordinated community action – and it has to come together fast if there is to be any chance of stopping this monstrous project. Firstly, the campaign must have an ‘umbrella’ theme and slogan to ensure that all residents realise the scale of the threat. Secondly, information has to be shared far and wide – this will be accurate and accessible and will counter the reassuring but misleading noises being put out by LRV. Thirdly, the information must result in widespread action from as many people as possible – objections and concerns must not be dismissed as merely the ravings of a few ‘NIMBYs;’ it must be made clear to politicians especially that our communities do not want this incinerator and that we are prepared to take (for them) career-ending action if they do not listen. We need to favourably influence by all legal means possible the following: • Local residents and business interest groups It is proposed that that a formal campaign group be established. This should be named something like: Don’t WasteThe Mearns or Don’t Waste East Renfrewshire with the constant tagline ‘Stop the Incinerator,’ or perhaps ‘LRV? UFO.’ We should organise this as if it were a professional industrial business concern executing a major project. In other words, define an organisational structure, the individual components of which have clear areas of responsibility to support the whole effort. Likely functions or sub groups could be: • Public Relations This in all likelihood will involve significant personal time commitment from people who already have ‘day jobs’. It must therefore make efficient and effective use of this precious time by being structured in our communications, meetings etc. First and foremost, the campaign must remain, in itself, united to be able to exert the desired influence. The following activities are seen as key: • Establishing the Group’s status as an interested party in the Section 36 engagement process, so that the group can put forward a formal submission as a non-statutory consultee and any accompanying public petition • Nevertheless, ensuring many different local voices are heard – residents encouraged to sign petitions, individually write letters to papers, politicians and to LRV itself – this may include a massive ‘letter to the editor’ signed by enough people for it to take up a full page of The Herald, South Glasgow and Eastwood Extra and Eastwood Today • Media events and photo opportunities – e.g. a residents’ ‘flash mob’ surrounding LRV’s information centre, residents winding a ‘green belt’ around the Loganswell site 8. Key Messages We need to bring home to residents just how damaging this incinerator will be to their way of life. We must keep the messages, clear, simple and unambiguous. • This is a huge industrial development right on our doorstep We must not enter into a technical dialogue in public with LRV and should not use their weasel word ‘Green’ terminology. All letters, interviews and web content must constantly use and re-use phrases such as ‘Green flag of convenience’ to emphasise that all LRV’s environmentally friendly talk is simply window dressing, and we must always refer to the project as the ‘waste incinerator’ or ‘Europe’s largest waste incinerator’ and not the fluffy ‘Lifetime Recycling Village.’ If we have to refer to the company, we call them LRV. The messages we need to get to the community include: • The incinerator will change your personal lifestyle and your wider community for the worse ________________________________________________________________________
St Ninians St Cadoc's Parent Council Newsletter re St Ninian's Catchment Consultation As you are all now aware East Renfrewshire Council have started the formal Consultation process regarding the proposal which they have put forward. We wish to highlight to you that IT IS NOT ACCURATE to suggest that the proposal contained in the Consultation document was the option proposed or supported by the Parent Council members of the Short Life Working Group (SLWG). We would ask you to follow the link to the minutes of the three meetings of the SLWG from which you will note that we asked for a three strand proposal to be consulted upon which sought to provide a short, medium and long term solution to the impending problem of overcrowding at St Ninian's. The minutes of these meetings can be found at http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/Edu_10_08_19_Item_07_Part_1.pdf and http://www.eastrenfrewshire.gov.uk/Edu_10_08_19_Item_07_Part_2.pdf This three strand proposal which all affected schools asked to be consulted upon and investigated in terms of feasibility by ERC sought 1. To Protect the current admission rights for all children currently at any of the affected schools. 2. If and only if a school (Primary or Secondary) reaches the point of over-subscription then priority of admission be given to children who hold a baptismal certificate into the Catholic faith. 3. That the council should plan now for long term provision of sufficient schools in the Eastwood area for the increasing numbers of people wishing to access denominational Catholic education at both Primary and Secondary level. Your Parent Council have invested a great deal of time in finding out as much as possible about the issues here and wish to stress to you that the consultation process is highly relevant to the future of St Cadoc's Primary. It is tempting at first blush to assume that because the proposal appears to affect the two feeder primaries and not us, that children of our school are unaffected. It is the firm view of your Parent Council that the issue of overcrowding at St Ninian's will not be solved in the long term unless another solution is found. The planned Greenlaw Project, inward migration in order to be within the newly created smaller catchment area if the proposal is given effect and the fact that our school has now reached capacity mean this issue of overcrowding is likely to be upon the three remaining schools again within a few short years. It should be noted that Our Lady of the Missions Primary already has temporary portacabins as classrooms to accommodate over capacity. We would also point out that the Response Form supplied with the Consultation Document appears to invite a Yes or No response to the proposal. As this is a formal consultation we urge each interested party to make their detailed views known and not simply respond Yes or No. We strongly urge you to make a detailed response. You can also attend the public meetings which ERC will hold at Woodfarm High School at 7:00pm on Wednesday 29 September 2010, and 7:00pm on Monday 4 October 2010 to ask any questions you may have. Whatever your view is on the subject, please make it count by responding to the consultation document by the closing date of Friday 5th November. You may also be aware that ERCl plan to send independent educational specialists to St Cadoc's and all other affected schools as part of their legal duties under the new laws governing formal Consultations. We have spoken with Mr Duffy about this and he has assured us that the persons in question are highly experienced and that any parent who does not wish their child to be spoken to about this issue can opt out of the process. You may also wish to note that the children will all be given a reply form for the consultation in class when the talk takes place. There is NO requirement on the child to fill it in at school or indeed at all so you may feel you want to tell your child to bring the form home to discuss with you if you have concerns about them completing same in class. We will keep you informed of any new information which may assist you in regard to the consultation process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St Vincent's Parent Council Dear Parent/Guardian, Parent Forum meeting: St Ninian’s on Tuesday 14 September 2010 at 7:30pm To discuss and inform opinions on the Local Authority’s Consultation Just over twenty-five years ago following a campaign by Parents from across the current catchment area and the Church, the first - and still only - Catholic secondary school in Eastwood was established. This consultation seeks to make the most significant change to your school community in a generation. It has SIGNIFICANT implications for ALL parents in the catchment area - BOTH IN GLASGOW AND IN EAST RENFREWSHIRE - who seek to send their children to St Ninian’s High School. Please try to make this meeting, at which your Parent Council can help to inform your opinions on the consultation’s implications. In the meantime, we highlight some points for your consideration: ? The consultation ignores input from the six Parent Councils who took part in a Working Group established by East Renfrewshire Council (ERC) before the summer holidays. It is incorrect to suggest that the proposal is broadly representative of the views expressed by the working group. ? Your Parent Council asked ERC that a three-strand solution be explored for which there was broad agreement: 1. Protect current admissions rights for all our children (regardless of their religion) currently enrolled in any of our five feeder primaries. 2. If (and only if) the school is over-subscribed, then prioritise admissions for baptised Catholics living within the catchment (all pupils currently enrolled in primary have protected rights as above). 3. Increase provision in Eastwood for all children who want access to a Catholic education. ? The consultation fails to address the complexity of the total problem. Even if priority admissions rights are taken away from children at St Angela’s and St Vincent’s, house building and migration into Eastwood mean that East Renfrewshire residents who seek admission to Catholic education are likely to face this issue in the very near future. In spite of extensions and use of “temporary” huts, Our Lady of the Missions operates above capacity and has children “domiciled” in other primaries, St Cadoc’s is at capacity and child numbers at St Joseph’s approach capacity. Careful planning in the non-denominational sector has assured ample room for growth in that sector. Nine non-denominational primaries cover the same area as three ERC Catholic primaries. None of the four non-denominational secondary schools has faced a proposal to deny their young people access to a school in the Eastwood area. ? It is important that if you believe that when St Ninian’s is oversubscribed then admissions policy (as opposed to only placing requests policy) should give 1. Other Scottish Local Authorities already have admissions policies that when a school is oversubscribed priority can be given to children of the denomination. 2. The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s website notes that prioritisation is permitted. 3. Minute of third meeting of Short-Life Working Group - comments re meeting held with Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. 4. St Ninian’s exists because the Church was able to satisfy ERC of the number of Catholic children requiring Catholic education (a requirement to establish a Catholic school). While Catholic schools admit and warmly welcome children from all faiths or none, their primary purpose is to educate Catholic children. ? Parents and pupils can respond to the consultation. If your family makes a combined response, then it will count as one. Each entitled individual in your family can make their own individual response. Yours faithfully,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Legal Advice In Scotland any Local Council Education Authority, when formulating their admission policy is entitled, in the case of a Roman Catholic school to prefer baptised Catholics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St Ninians Flyer sent to parents
Parent Council
Dear Parent/Guardian, Parent Forum meeting: St Ninian’s on Tuesday 14 September 2010 at 7:30pm Just over twenty-five years ago following a campaign by Parents from across the current catchment area and the Church, the first - and still only - Catholic secondary school in Eastwood was established. This consultation seeks to make the most significant change to your school community in a generation. It has SIGNIFICANT implications for ALL parents in the catchment area - BOTH IN GLASGOW AND IN EAST RENFREWSHIRE - who seek to send their children to St Ninian’s High School. Please try to make this meeting, at which your Parent Council can help to inform your opinions on the consultation’s implications. In the meantime, we highlight some points for your consideration: • The consultation ignores input from the six Parent Councils who took part in a Working Group established by East Renfrewshire Council (ERC) before the summer holidays. It is incorrect to suggest that the proposal is broadly representative of the views expressed by the working group. • Your Parent Council asked ERC that a three-strand solution be explored for which there was broad agreement: • The consultation fails to address the complexity of the total problem. Even if priority admissions rights are taken away from children at St Angela’s and St Vincent’s, house building and migration into Eastwood mean that East Renfewshire residents who seek admission to Catholic education are likely to face this issue in the very near future. In spite of extensions and use of “temporary” huts, Our Lady of the Missions operates above capacity and has children “domiciled” in other primaries, St Cadoc’s is at capacity and child numbers at St Joseph’s approach capacity. Careful planning in the non-denominational sector has assured ample room for growth in that sector. Nine non-denominational primaries cover the same area as three ERC Catholic primaries. None of the four non-denominational secondary schools has faced a proposal to deny their young people access to a school in the Eastwood area. • It is important that if you believe that when St Ninian’s is oversubscribed then admissions policy (as opposed to only placing requests policy) should give priority to baptised Catholics, you raise this matter in your response to the consultation. • Parents and pupils can respond to the consultation. If your family makes a combined response, then it will count as one. Each entitled individual in your family can make their own individual response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- St Angelas Flyer sent to parents Parent Council a) Protect current admissions rights for all our children (regardless of their religion) currently enrolled in any of our five feeder primaries; b) If (and only if) the school is over-subscribed, then prioritise admissions for baptised Catholics living within the catchment (all pupils currently enrolled in primary have protected rights as above), c) Increase provision in Eastwood for all children who want access to a Catholic education.
a) Other Scottish Local Authorities already have admissions policies that when a school is oversubscribed priority can be given to children of the denomination. b) The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s website notes that prioritisation is permitted. c) Minute of third meeting of Short-Life Working Group - comments re meeting held with Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. d) St Ninian’s exists because the Church was able to satisfy Strathclyde Regional Council of the number of Catholic children requiring Catholic education (a requirement to establish a Catholic school). While Catholic schools admit and warmly welcome children from all faiths or none, their primary purpose is to educate Catholic children. • Parents and pupils can respond to the consultation. If your family makes a combined response, then it will count as one. Each entitled individual in your family can make their own individual response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ short,medium and long term proposal put forward at the SLWG and supported by the Proposal for Short Life Working Group Short term Medium Term Long Term Background East Renfrewshire Council (ERC) has established a Short Life Working Group (SLWG) on “Issues pertaining to Admissions and Placing Requests into St Ninian's High School, Giffnock". Attendees include Councillors and senior officials of East Renfrewshire and Glasgow City Council, Representatives of the Diocese of Paisley and the Archdiocese of Glasgow, Parent members from all six affected Parent Councils; Our Lady of the Missions, St Angela's, St Cadoc's, St Joseph's, St Ninian's, St Vincent's. The SLWG is trying to decide on solutions to recommend for consideration by ERC’s Education Committee. If the Education Committee decides that a wider consultation is required, then individuals will be able to make their own response, as was the case with the consultation conducted in November 2009. Throughout the last few months, Chairs and reps from the six affected Parent Councils have also maintained close contact with each other and have held several cluster meetings, working with common cause to find solutions that respect the legal and moral rights of all Parents making up the St Ninian’s family. There is no simple, quick fix solution to this very complex issue. Simply removing a feeder primary school by changing the catchment area won’t solve the problem; all our feeder primaries continue to grow. Indeed such action would immediately and massively increase the number of placing requests from any part of the country that must legally be granted admission to St Ninian’s. This, in turn, would dilute local community bonding, jeopardise the character of the school and affect its ethos. Removing part of the St Ninian’s family would also set a precedent to remove another primary school in the near future as increasing numbers of families within the former Eastwood (Busby, Clarkston, Giffnock, Newton Mearns) area elect Catholic education. St Ninian’s has already faced supply and demand issues. During the 1990s, there was a proposal to remove right of entry to St Ninian’s from the children at St Cadoc’s. This proposal was defeated and St Ninian’s got an extension. No other secondary school in our area has faced a proposal to change its catchment area. Substantial numbers of new house builds are underway in Newton Mearns. This will also increase pressure on St Ninian’s from within East Renfewshire. Figures provided by ERC demonstrate that there is room for substantial growth in the non-denominational sector. The level of provision and delivery of Catholic education in our locale needs careful future planning. The proposal above outlines a set of measures which taken together already has broad agreement across the entire St Ninian’s family. Proceeding on the principle of no harm to any feeder primary school within the St Ninian’s family and those who currently enjoy a first priority right to attend St Ninian’s, the proposal addresses the short, medium and long terms and provides a solution that fully respects the rights of the entire school community. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*St Cadoc’s Primary School Parent Council* *11th November 2010* Dear Parent or Guardian, Please find attached a copy of the response, which your parent council has If you have not already responded to the consultation we urge you to do so The appropriate form for making a response can be downloaded from the We are sure this is an issue about which you will wish to make a written We feel the following points require particular clarification in connection · The question of balloting has been raised in this document. At the · ERC acknowledges its proposal would only solve the overcrowding · ERC states that guidance from the Scottish Government makes it · Other Scottish local authorities already have an admissions policy · The Equality and Human Rights Commission Website notes that
*Please respond to the consultation. Your views are important.* * * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *St Cadoc’s Primary School Parent Council* 11th November 2010 Dear Sirs, I am writing on behalf of the Parent Council of St Cadoc’s Primary to give After holding two meetings of our parent forum, issuing a questionnaire and We, the St Cadoc’s Parent Council (and in common with the 4 other parent We wish to see a priority clause introduced so that if and only if a We understand that the Scottish Ministers do not in fact view the We strongly feel that the proposal under consultation will not, by ERC’s own
Yours Sincerely,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |