Subject: RE: MARR COLLEGE
Dear Ms McFarlane,
Thank you for your email of 16th August 2010 which I read with interest.
It was very kind of you to take the time out to answer the points I raised (considerably different to your council colleague Phillip Saxton from whom I have still not heard anything). I had not intended to write again but given the length of your reply and the time it must have taken you to compose it I thought it only right to come back to you on a few points.
I had no idea that you had attended Marr College – this is reassuring. I also attended between 1981 and 1987 shortly after the new extension had been built. I can’t say as I enjoyed my time there but I realize that it was and remains a good school, and therefore worthy of making every effort to retain it for the future young people of Troon as CK Marr intended.
I am well aware that the original school building was built for a capacity considerably lower than the current school role. However the new extension built in the late 1970s was meant to address this problem. By not taking this into account in your reply you are giving the misleading impression that the current school including the extension if it had been maintained properly is inadequate for the current number of pupils on its role. That is not to say that certain things could not have been upgraded too but that is by the way.
However conversely you could argue that the current playing fields (over 13.8 hectares) were built for a school role of 380 and now the council is trying to shoe horn 1250 pupils on to them. Obviously if the Council select the new building option then they will be trying to fit a school role of 1250 on playing fields of about 8 hectares in size making the problem worse!
I am very pleased to hear that the new build option or indeed the refurbishment option will be built without using the PFI or PPP funding mechanism. That is a considerable relief. I agree with you about these PFI and PPP funded schools and other public buildings being a financial mill stone around the neck of Scottish councils and other public organisations. I did say so at the time when it was unfashionable to say so, but of course we are now where we are. Previous mismanagement can only be rectified now – we can’t unfortunately turn the clock back.
It is refreshing to hear that you also consider that Marr College has indeed been neglected over the years and are fighting to rectify this.
I still do disagree with your views regarding the Historic Scotland listing. I had no idea that the tiles in the halls were listed but am very pleased that they are. Listing is there to preserve something of value for future generations and should not be seen as a barrier to improvements. I believe that the building and the traditions of the school as well as its reputation are worth fighting for but I agree it must be improved for current and future generations.
I am aware of what someone said who was on these recent tours and I quote ‘On the Marr tour we were informed that it was impossible to build a handrail on the stairs up from the vestibules due to the listed nature of the tiles. The guide seemed quite surprised when my mother pointed out that a bannister could be free-standing fixed to the (presumably unlisted) stone staircase. "Nobody's thought of that" was the startled reply.’ This is indicative of the attitude that seems to pervade everything to do with Marr College. It is all ‘can’t do this’ rather than ‘can do this’. It has been pervasive since the 1970s when Strathclyde Region tried to get their hands on the Marr Trust money.
Interesting to note from those that were able to go on the school tour that it seems that it is primarily the new building (not the old one) that is primarily the problem here. I think this must be something to do with the quality of the old building as opposed to the new one.
I do not understand the problem of having pupils on site during refurbishment works. I quote ‘If the playing fields are not an option the Council will need to decant all the pupils somewhere else as the law dictates we cannot have children being educated on a building site over and above the health and safety issue.’ This is because I stay directly opposite a school in Glasgow which is currently undergoing extensive refurbishment. If the law does indeed dictate that children cannot be educated on the building site then I believe that Glasgow City Council are currently breaking that law.
I am very pleased to hear that the playing fields are protected from development through planning laws as I believe that they are very important for the whole of Troon as they are. Any attempt at reducing the size of them should be resisted. However if the Council do wish to proceed with the development of a new school I have no doubt that this would not pose a great problem to them given that they are part of the ‘establishment’.
If this is indeed a ‘genuine’ consultation then I for one will be most pleased that people’s views are taken into account. This would then have the honour of being the first consultation where I would have been aware that this is has occurred in all but very minor ways when it suits what is wanted in the first place. I am sure from your reply that you will do everything to ensure that this occurs on this occasion.
I am aware that education is not only about buildings, but it is indeed part of it. I still do not understand why old buildings are not just as good as new ones (and on this occasion I believe they are much better given their stature, attractiveness, traditions, etc), or there would be no need to do anything on this occasion as the children could be educated in the open air.
I wholeheartedly concur with your desire to maintain and improve education for those in Troon and across South Ayrshire and I very impressed with your intelligent and passionate reply. You obviously care about this issue and this is most refreshing.
Yours sincerely
Christopher Crawford
http://www.christophercrawford.110mb.com
No comments:
Post a Comment