KIRKLANDPARK PRIMARY SCHOOL
PARENT COUNCIL
From: Grant Law <Grant@connect2marketing.co.uk>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed Football Pitch on Kirklandpark Site
To: Catherine Doig <catherinedoig@googlemail.com>
Cc: Leonard McKague <leonard.mckague@googlemail.com>, Frank McGraw <frank.mcgraw@vcl.uk.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed Football Pitch on Kirklandpark Site
To: Catherine Doig <catherinedoig@googlemail.com>
Cc: Leonard McKague <leonard.mckague@googlemail.com>, Frank McGraw <frank.mcgraw@vcl.uk.com>
Hi Catherine,
I attach our thoughts and responses below each question. We hope you find it helpful as you consider what is best from an education, welfare and facilities perspective for all at Kirkland Park Primary School.
Kind rgds,
Grant.
Hi Grant
The parent council is holding a consultation with all members of the parent forum (all parents of children attending Kirklandpark school and nursery). As part of this we are seeking information from all bodies concerned in the financial planning and design of the project. It is our duty to promote the education and welfare of our children, and we believe the parents can only decide whether or not to support the plan if they receive accurate information, rather than relying on assumption, supposition and misinterpretation.
It would be very much appreciated if you could provide answers to the following:
1. What provisions are planned for the toileting and changing needs of Dynamo's players? What availability has been made for female players, as we believe Dynamos plan to increase membership including female membership?
The parent council is holding a consultation with all members of the parent forum (all parents of children attending Kirklandpark school and nursery). As part of this we are seeking information from all bodies concerned in the financial planning and design of the project. It is our duty to promote the education and welfare of our children, and we believe the parents can only decide whether or not to support the plan if they receive accurate information, rather than relying on assumption, supposition and misinterpretation.
It would be very much appreciated if you could provide answers to the following:
1. What provisions are planned for the toileting and changing needs of Dynamo's players? What availability has been made for female players, as we believe Dynamos plan to increase membership including female membership?
The existing changing rooms with 3 separate toilets will be used. In the evenings, this facility is for training and all players arrive changed and leave as they arrive at every all-weather pitch we see. With all childrens football, players arrive in kit. We therefore believe that for club training, the current changing rooms remain adequate, and the toilet facilities remain adequate. We already have female membership for over 5 years and travelling teams have made use of these facilities without issue and the facilities take into account the needs of girl participants. If the club expands this will not affect the number of children using the pitch and therefore the toilet facilities at any one time, so current facilities can support any increased membership. To reassure your parent forum members (and residents) we do not anticipate a need to increase user numbers per session as a result of growth in membership.
2. What happens if the pitch is not fit for use due to damage or litter in the morning when school children are scheduled to use it for their educational activities? What will be the Dynamos role in the day to day maintenance of the pitch?
The club see two responsibilities here. Firstly the post training/match inspection, which will be the responsibility of the coaches on each evening and this will be taken seriously. Any litter dropped as a result of Dynamo activity will be removed after each session. Any litter dropped outwith the facility which is unrelated to our children/players will, as it is now, be the responsibility of the council.
We cannot be held responsible for litter lobbed over the fence by youths during the night. We may be happy to find a (paid if necessary) volunteer to walk the area each morning of school-term. The detail of this is something we have not had time to fully consider and we would need to look into this further and discuss the appropriateness of this with the education authorities and Head Teacher at an appropriate time, but it is our intention to operate in a supportive manner in this area and respond positively to suggestions and conditions.
3. What plans do the Dynamos have for meeting the maintenance costs? Is it possible that the maintenance costs may increase due to heavy use?
The club are taking on the burden of these costs and are included in our financial projections. We are putting £18,000 p.a. of our team fund-raising towards a pitch surface replacement, which we would expect to do every 9-10 years. We are further setting aside £8,000 p.a. for pitch maintenance which may be a 2-4 week brush of the surface (evenings or weekends - takes 1 hour) and quarterly surface servicing from the pitch supplier. We would set aside £4,000 p.a. for insurance purposes to cover damage should it occur. We will also pay for replacement light bulbs as required and any electrical servicing and maintenance. An effective maintenance plan will be put in place and we do not see the costs increasing from year to year beyond any inflationary change. Our commitment here to ensuring this facility is maintained in excellent condition is hopefully underlined by the sums we are putting into this facility each year and sums which we believe can be met as demonstrated by club fund-raising delivered over the last 3 years.
4. Why is a new pitch planned when it is stated on the Sports Scotland website that they will support the upgrading of grass pitches? Whilst it is accepted that the current ash pitch is smaller than the proposed pitch is it possible that Sports Scotland would support upgrading this to an all weather surface?
Sportscotland will support the upgrading of ash pitches (but not we believe grass pitches). Certainly priority will not be given to good quality grass pitch conversion and any application to convert good grass pitches in Strathaven would not be successful. The ash pitch would make sense for the club if it was in a much larger space, albeit its closer proximity to Lethame Road may certainly be less attractive to residents and would have less parking. This current space would not accommodate a single seven a side pitch for our club, let alone a full size match space requirement. FRom a club and fottballing perspective it would be redundant at weekends and would only meet around 25% of our evening training needs because of its size. It therefore would be a lot of money for very little benefit for the club and the user sessions would be about 20% of what they otherwise would be. Sportscotland have visited the site and looked at options such as this and they entirely agree with this assessment and It is unlikely they would support the upgrading of this small ash pitch in terms of optimising usability and their funds for such a limited space. It would probably cost half as much as our current proposal, but would deliver only a quarter of the functionality and space. This option would not remove the issues that exist, nor provide as much opportunity for the community.
5. Given that the pitch will be continuously used by Kirklandpark pupils (and possibly other schools) during the day and then used by Dynamos during the evenings and weekends what time slots do you plan for community groups to use the facility?
There is certainly time between 5 and 6pm on weekdays, maybe from 4pm if not required by the primary school and agreed with the school?, and we may try and make community time available on a Friday evening (even though we could also use this time ourselves). Outside of term term, all-day usage may be available and also probably outwith the football season (summer) - to groups which meet our intended criteria for use. At weekends, our club would take priority, but if afternoons are free (as children tend to play in the Saturday and Sunday mornings) then we can make available to appropriate groups, but not casual adult bookings. Our thinking at this stage is that childrens groups take priority, and any group must be properly constituted and probably volunteer led. There will be no booking system on an ad hoc basis, but applications and agreement with the Trustees will be made to access the facility. No casual bookings. No adult five a sides and no groups from outside our community are expected to qualify. Coach education for the benefit of adults and children and any form of sports career development for individuals in our community would also form part of community use. We will encourage education use for sports qualifications for young people and adults, encouraging more volunteers (especially female volunteers) in our community. To avoid any confusion on this matter, we can confirm our business plans do not include any pitch rental income.
6. Will it be possible for the pitch to have permanent markings for other sports such as netball or will ribbon markings have to be laid out at the beginning of each session?
No, permanent marking beyond one full size pitch markings (in white) and 3 x seven aside markings (in yellow) will not be possible on the pitch playing areas. Ribbon markings, cones, markers, or other techniques used by schools are suggested. We understand that playground markings in the renewed playground will have the necessary permanent markings as requested by the school as is the case at Wester Overton and other schools. This pitch will therefore not exclude the ability of playground markings in the playground (we presume). Also this pitch will provide a play area facility at least 4 years ahead of any tarmac MUGA being available. Current pupils will therefore benefit from this initiative four-five years ahead of any refurbishment of the school.
7. What plans do the Dynamos have for addressing the lack of parking spaces near the proposed pitch?
We believe that numbers per 90 minute session will be reduced from around 80 (which we have in the months April - September) to between 50 and 60 children each evening. This is because we can train under floodlights for an extra hour each evening. This will reduce the volume of cars currently dropping off and parking during the week.
We do not wish parking to be a "show-stopping" issue. Despite some local residents being sceptical of this, we believe that the club CAN control parking and can request drivers use George Allan Park parking. We can create rotas that insist on drop off and collection areas at George Allan if required. The location also means that c. 20% of players will walk to the facility, irrespective of weather, as happens at present. Car sharing is prevalent and can be increased. Most parents do not stay at training and therefore it is also more about dropping off rather than parking.
If necessary, spaces opposite the current 18 spaces could possibly host another 18 spaces, if the council believed this was necessary and a good idea. This whole matter which hadn't hitherto been raised as an issue with the club will now be an area that local residents will see improvements in whether or not this pitch proceeds, but it is likely that the pitch will deliver better solutions to parking than we would otherwise have to address if the status quo remains.
8. Have the Dynamos been offered land on the outskirts of Strathaven for the construction of a full size pitch? Is this site being sought because the council are offering the KP's MUGA money?
No, we have not and we do not expect to receive such an offer, welcome as it would be to have another option, but obviously this would be a lost opportunity for an improved primary school facility (if this is indeed the conclusion of the primary school). Any alternative land offered outside of the settlement boundary would require a settlement boundary extension and planning thereafter. We believe these processes would take in the region of 5-7 years to be achieved, if at all.
The history of why we have selected this site/route is as follows:-
Given there is no land available to use, and after initial discussions two years ago with the rugby club about possibilities of land rented at a monthly fee that were subsequently not of a sufficient size and ultimately sold for car access to Smellies, our focus was then on Kirkland Park's grass park. However following a sportscotland site visit earlier this year to review our options, it became clear that they could not support the replacement of the existing grass pitch either at KP or at John Hastie. They recommended the only space in this area that they would support for an appropriate pitch size would be the space we have identified and they immediately saw the potential benefits of an attachment to the primary school. If we did not pursue this as the only suitable land option then we would not have the potential financial support of sportscotland and this would leave a crucial gap of up to £200,000 on the project. In subsequent discussions it became clear that the Primary School Modernisation Team realised that a more valuble and useful facility for the school could be a possibility in partnership with our club using the funds we can contribute directly and also raise on behalf of the community (and the school) from sportscotland and other grant bodies. The potential "MUGA budget" means that both the school and the club can mutually benefit and achieve something much bigger and better for both. Therefore, although this was not our initial reason for this site, we were excited by the idea as it does make financial sense at wider community level as well as greatly improving the new play facility that would be available to the primary school.
9. Our primary concern is the learning environment provided for the 300 children attending Kirlandpark school and there is concern that the proposed pitch will adversely affect the education of our children. How do you see a balance being struck between the need for improved facilities for the Dynamos and the need to maintain community support for the Dynamos (which would be affected by compromising KPs learning environment).
Given that we do not see the likelihood of the pitch being open to anyone other than school-children during the day, there will be no noise or activity adjacent to the school during class time. The Education Authorities are in charge and we would imagine that the Head Teacher has a large say in this. We would not see why (even if acceptable to the education authorities) that any other school will hire buses and request parental permission to take pupils out of their own schools to move children to the facility for a PE session - even if this was available to them. We understand this would be the procedure. Extra-curricular activities may of course be different, but we can't comment on this, but suffice to say that the primary school will have already emptied unless of course you are using the area yourselves after school. Again, we can't comment on access for the Academy, but this should be discussed and agreed rather than presumed as likely or even problematic. School periods are short, and it would be very surprising if the Academy were to request day-time access before 4pm simply because of practicalities and effective use of timetables. Obviously consult with the education authorities, but it should be something that can be satisfactorily clarified and should not become an issue based on supposition which results in the school being denied a super primary school led facility such as this would be.
We see no reason why the learning environment will change at all and it should therefore remain as it is at present and not compromised at all, although again this is something to discuss with your contact in the Education Department, rather that our club providing answers as we have no remit over this and can only make a reasoned opinion regarding practicalities.
This is why we do see this as an excellently balanced facility, enormously improving and increasing the secure spatial area and all weather soft play surface conditions for the primary children as well as giving them a play area (whether for football, rounders, athletics, obstacles courses, exercise sessions, parents sports day, etc, etc ) at KP, with an evening facility managed responsibility by a single partner with a financial responsibility - granted under conditions of a council lease - and based on our massive club investment to ensure it remains a facility to be proud of. We see absolutely no compromise in the learning environment at all and we see no overlap of potential use between the club and the school. It appears to sit in excellent harmony, giving something of much greater value and opportunity to both the school and the football club. This is why we believe this works at a school-children's benefit level as well as the financial level which as mentioned makes this the only opportunity to give the whole children's volunteer community of Strathaven such a facility. The reassuring aspect of this, is that it jointly "belongs" to the school and the Dynamos both of whom would have the complete access rights and can call it (at different times of the day) their own for the benefit of their children for whom they have responsibility. We feel it should give you everything you will want for school-time needs and to much higher standards of specification and utilisation possibilities for many more than a small MUGA with more limited usage may be able to do.
n.b. As a final point regarding the additional physical exercise and fun benefits for the primary children, as we understand, at Wester Overton last year, each primary year class got break access to the MUGA on 1 day per week, because it is of course of more limited size and the younger children got limited access for PE classes only and not at break-times, which was given over to the older children. This would of course not be a constraint on Kirkland Park if the larger area was available to all your children every day aswell as multiple PE sessions. It may therefore be important to understand any limitations on the alternative to our plans as part of your decision.
Catherine, in summary, and we apologise for the length of response, but we hope this helps provide positive answers to your questions, and we obviously believe in this not simply as something great for our club and therefore the young people of our community as a whole, but equally something unique and of great and widely-based opportunity for the primary school. The alternative is worth discussing with those other schools' head teachers/staff who have received a MUGA and assess their view on the options you now have in front of you. From a school asset perspective, this appears a very positive opportunity, giving the school an enviable £500,000+ facility, and we are sure can be greatly utilised by the school and its pupils and staff over many years. We hope this helps address some of the issues and confusion which will inevitably arise at this stage. We hope it also demonstrates our commitment to deliver a partnership with the school, which should be entirely complementary with clear conditions of usage and responsibility - that is our aim and I'm sure it's also the aim of the PS Modernisation Team and SLC Education Department, who would be representing your interests to ensure no compromise on any aspect of educational need, but rather ensure added value in facilities for staff and children at the Primary School.
Finally, just to reiterate the point that, we would suggest that the Council Education Department representatives may be better placed to answer some of the above questions and that ultimately the answers in these areas are their decisions in consultation with your group and staff and they will be better able to advise than our club.
If there any further questions, as always, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
Best regards,
Grant.
Parent Council’s questions (through Catherine Doig - PC member) to Dynamos and their answers (through Grant Law)