After years of meticulous planning, £40 million proposals to build what was heralded as “one of Europe’s finest schools” in St Andrews could unravel in the face of unprecedented criticism.
“The results of that education consultation, they allege, have not been made available to them-something which does not inspire confidence.”
Mrs Morrison suggested it may be time to go back to the drawing board, saying what had started as a commendable objective ran the risk of descending into a fiscally irresponsible farce.
“The best outcome is the best possible deal for local children,” she continued. “To achieve that, parents and local community groups have to be involved throughout the process.
“That should result in less decision-making by officers and more by local politicians informed by the local community.”
The St Andrews Preservation Trust has also added to the council’s headache, criticising the proposals and calling the consultation a sham.
“We cannot regard the consultation as being a sound or credible basis on which to seek public opinion, and therefore regard it as being fundamentally flawed,” a spokesman said.
“To describe the site as being on the North Haugh is inaccurate and misleading.”
While almost all support the establishment of a single site school in St Andrews, it seems many regard the proposal as flawed.
Councillors had been due to receive an update on the plans this week. However, a spokeswoman admitted the timetable had slipped once again.
“There is still no date confirmed for a special meeting (to discuss the issue) but it is likely to be in the second half of July,” she said.
Meanwhile, Fife Council property services manager Colin McCredie said £40 million was still set aside for the project, and added the authority was prepared to invest an additional £2.55 million to enable “school and community access.”
However, The Courier understands there is still a “significant” difference of opinion over relative land values, with one source claiming the gap between the university and the council is “too big to ever be bridged.”
A Courier probe has unearthed a series of potentially fatal flaws in the council’s plan, with one respected solicitor claiming the authority’s public consultation on the subject was illegal.
Meanwhile, a senior councillor has broken ranks with the authority to launch a blistering attack on the proposal, calling it a “self-indulgent pipe dream.”
The plan has also been criticised by the St Andrews preservation trust, who insist it is “fundamentally flawed.”
A single-site replacement for Madras College has been a long-held ambition of Fife Council, and proposals to share facilities with the town’s university had been called the way ahead.
The authority hopes to build the modern school at Langlands, on land owned by the university. However, a significant difference of opinion over land values has left the plans floundering.
The Courier has found that patience is now wearing dangerously thin, with many councillors secretly disgruntled about the state of affairs.
Meanwhile, a leading St Andrews solicitor is questioning the legality of the authority’s initial consultation paper. It asked members of the public if they favoured a single-site school “on the North Haugh.”
The legal expert, who asked not to be named, has issued a damning critique of the consultation, insisting no part of the proposed site actually lies on ground known as the North Haugh.
He said, “The ‘new Madras College proposal paper’ does not satisfy legal requirements about consultation…and contains factual inaccuracies.
“The proposed location is not the location approved by Fife Council’s education and children’s services committee in 2009.’Neither proper nor lawful.'”The (current) proposal is not for a new school on the North Haugh campus…but for a new school on Langlands within St Andrews West.”
The solicitor added that given such inconsistencies the consultation was “neither proper nor lawful.”
Glenrothes councillor Kay Morrison, the opposition education spokeswoman on Fife Council, has spent the last few months becoming increasingly concerned about the plans.
She launched an attack on council chiefs and suggested it may be time for the authority to cut its losses.
“Building a school next door to a university sounds like a good idea,” she told The Courier. “If it is possible to share some facilities, mutual benefits could be experienced, so it was worth exploring.
“The exploration began over two years ago. However, since then public money has been spent and council officer time gobbled up in pursuit of what could prove to be a vainglorious dream.”
Meanwhile, Mrs Morrison shares concerns over the council’s initial consultation.
She said, “Local people complain of the costs incurred in monetary and environmental terms of transporting children to the new location and of continuing confusion about the preferred site, which is not the one about which they were consulted.
Continued…