The  Need  for  Change?    Is  it  0.35  or  0.25  children  per  Grandhome  house?  

Let’s   start   by   remembering   that   according   to   the   council’s   own   proposal   the   development   at  Grandhome  is  the  ONLY  need  for  change  to  Middleton  Park  and  Glashieburn  (section  2.2).      We  have  also  continually  stated  that  the  Council’s  consultation  document  is  riddled  with  errors,  misinformation  and  disinformation.  We  asked  them  about  this  and  asked  them  to  correct  them.  Their  response  to  this  was  to  quote  the  Director  of  Education  “There  are  no  errors  other  than  a  couple  of  typos”.    Well,  unfortunately  for  the  officers  this  is  simply  not  correct.    There  are  glaring  inconsistencies  regarding  the  roll  forecasts  related  to  the  Grandhome  Development.    

Very  conveniently  the  officers  have  used  a  higher  figure  of  0.35  children  per  house  when  putting   forward   the   argument   to   close   Middleton   Park   and   Glashieburn   to   form   Burst  Primary   but   this   figure   drops   to   0.25   when   calculating   the   necessary   capacity   to  accommodate  the  same  new  children  from  the  same  development  into  Danestone  School.        So   let’s   review   the   proposal   document.     Graph   6   is   used   to   indicate   that  Middleton   Park  will  quickly  be  over  capacity  when  the  new  housing  at  Grandhome  is  built.        However,  if  the  officers  had  used  the  same  0.25  figure  as  was  done  when  indicating  all  the  new  children  could  fit  into  Danestone  then  there  is  significant  divergence  of  the  graph.    We  must  also  remember  that  the  proposal  assumes  that  planning  permission  would  have  been  submitted  but  this  has  been  delayed.    This  delay  could  push  back  the  rise  in  children  for  at  least  a  year  if  not  2  or   3   years.     The   latest   Draft   Land   Housing   Audit   2013   doesn’t   have   any   houses   built   at  Grandhome  until  2017  at  the  earliest!      

   With  the  best  case  scenario  of  a  minimum  2  year  delay  in  the  new  housing  the  council’s  own  figures  clearly  demonstrate  that  Middleton  Park  will  be  continue  to  be  able  to  accommodate  the  new  housing.  

 Confusion  could  have  been  easily  avoided  if  only  the  officers  had  used  the  same  figures  for  both  pieces  of  work  that  were  being  done  simultaneously.    We   also   need   to   consider   the   current   economic   situation   and   the   effect   this   is   having   on  construction  of  new  developments.    The  figures  in  the  proposal  document  rely  on  all  450  homes  being  built,  sold  and  occupied  in  the  period  2016-­‐2020.  Any  sluggish  sales  in  the  development  and  the  predicted  arrival  of  addition  school  children  could  be  beyond  the  current  projections.      We   must   also   remember   how   drastically   wrong   these   roll   predictions   have   been  (www.educationorburst.info/rolls.html).      What  we  cannot  understand  is  why  the  children  of  Middleton  Park  and  Glashieburn  should  be  forced  into  Burst  Primary  to  allow  development  at  Grandhome.        The   council   plans   to   rezone   Grandhome   to   Danestone   Primary  when   people   start  moving   in.  Interestingly   these   figures   have   Danestone   quickly   losing   its   Confucius   classroom   and   being  very   cramped   too.     The   impact   this   could   have   on   the   community   is   far   from   excellent,  particularly   given   the   coverage   of   Danestone   and   the   Confucius   classroom   in   the   Aberdeen  Citizen  on  25/9.   In   fact   if   looks  very  much   like  Danestone  would  be  over   capacity  before  any  new  school  was  built  /  viable.                                                  Emails  made  available  under  the  freedom  of  information  act  (www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=50788&sID=22462)  confirm  that  despite  the  proposal  for  closure  using  the  figure  of  0.35  children  per  household  the  figure  for  calculating  the  influx  of  children  to  Danestone  is  0.25  per  household.    We  are  asking  for  clarity  on  whether  major  figures  from  our  consultation  document  are  incorrect?  Have  the  figures  been  manipulated  to  suit  the  officers’  argument?      These  excerpts  highlight   the  deception  –  or  have  they  simply   forgotten  that   it  was  0.35   in   the  school  closure  consultation  document  being  written  at  the  same  time?      

                       

                               

   We   have   continually   stated   that   the   Council’s   consultation   document   is   riddled   with   errors,  misinformation   and   disinformation.   Yet,   despite   submissions   to   the   consultation   process   no  corrections  have  been  made.    This  contravenes  the  ethos  of  the  Consultation.      Therefore  yet  again  the  questions  on  our  lips  are:  

• Deception  or  more  blatant  errors?    • What  is  the  need  for  change?