St Andrews Community Council has defended its right not to enter into discussion with a parents campaign group fighting for a new Madras College to be built at Pipeland.
Lisa Leitch, a parent and member of Parent Voice, spoke at Monday night’s meeting of the community council.
She urged the community council, which objected to Pipeland during the planning process, to work with parents and stand against the judicial review lodged last week by three former Madras teachers.
But the community council overwhelmingly decided it would be inappropriate to comment at this time, with a full planning application for a school at Pipeland still pending.
Members also decided not to take a position on the prospect of legal proceedings although no one declared an interest when a community councillor asked for anyone to declare any conflicts if they were involved in the current threat of legal action.
Ms Leitch said in her statement: “Those opposed to Pipeland doubtless felt that they were acting in the best interests of the town.
“They were motivated by nothing more than a love of their St Andrews and a desire to protect its environment
“However parents feel injustice too.
“They’ve turned out in huge numbers to express a view and to support a democratic process to decide on a site, only to find people seeking to overturn that decision through legal action rather than democracy.
“They’ve invited groups like the community council and Preservation Trust to sit down and talk, and even to join them for a relaxed picnic to get to know each other better.
“They’ve not even received the courtesy of a reply, and consequently feel utterly ignored. They’ve suddenly found themselves the subject of threats of legal action to silence their debate, and even suggestions that objectors might use libel action against light-hearted jokes as a means of funding judicial review. Why?
“For nothing more than standing up for their children’s rights, and expressing a clear strong view in a democratic process.”
Ms Leitch said it had been “unfair and unrepresentative” for quotes on social media to be presented against pro-Pipeland campaigners as a “campaign of hate”.
She said thousands of comments are made on Facebook every month and the majority of these comments are made by individuals, not by Parent Voice or any ‘official’ spokespeople.
“She said these were “genuine voices of our community. This is not hate”.
She added: “Having said this, anyone feeling offended by a specific comment should let us know, which specific comments they find to be factually inaccurate, threatening or abusive, and we will review it, and if we also find it to be questionable we will remove it.
“However, we will not accept attempts to silence debate simply because you don’t agree with what’s being said, and in return we would hope that there will be more willingness to listen and engage with the passionate views being expressed in an entirely acceptable manner.
“The threat of a judicial review now hangs heavy over our children’s education.
“It is extremely unlikely to succeed, but could easily cause years of delay, and levels of anger and frustration in parents far beyond anything we have seen so far.
“Therefore, we would like to ask this community council to support a motion that states that now that the democratic process has run its course the community should come together, reject judicial review and begin talks and collaboration on how to make the new school the best it can possibly be, for all parties.
“It’s time to put division behind us.”
St Andrews Community Council chairman Howard Greenwell said it was difficult to respond to Parent Voice’s request for joint working or a similar recent request from Fife Council education spokesman Bryan Poole when there was no clarity on what this joint working might entail.
Concern was expressed that it might prevent the community council from playing a full role in discussions over a forthcoming full planning application for Pipeland.
Community councillor Penny Uprichard also noted that Fife Council’s own rules stated that in the event of the public not being happy about planning decisions, they encouraged people to go to the Court of Session.
What was different here regarding the Madras judicial review, sheasked.
She also claimed it was Fife Council which had threatened education in St Andrews over the years by not investing in the infrastructure of the existing split site Madras buildings at Kilrymont and South Street.
Community councillor Henry Paul said it was vital there was no conflict of interests between community council members and any judicial review proceedings led by the three former Madras teachers Lindsay Matheson, Mary Jack and Sandra Thomson.
Responding to questions by Penny Uprichard as to why he believed the judicial review pursuit was “outrageous”, Fife councillor Brian Thomson said it was his personal opinion and he fearedthe process could delay the new Madras foryears, harmingeducation.