The parents, teachers, board of management and, not least, the pupils of St. Coleman's boys national school, Macroom, are fed up to the back teeth with the delay and prevarication by the Department of Education and Science in dealing with their request for a new school. Unless the Department acts swiftly recent developments in this matter will leave the Exchequer facing costs for a school that will be significantly greater than they would otherwise have been.
St. Coleman's boys national school has 130 pupils and eight teachers. Projected enrolment figures envisage the appointment of at least one more teacher in the near future. Given the huge number of recent housing developments in Macroom, pupil numbers are expected to grow. Planned improvements to the main Cork-Killarney route, the N22, are expected to lead to further developments which will increase the town's population even more along with the enrolment at the school in question. At present, the campus of the school straddles the N22 which poses a significant danger to the health and safety of pupils and staff.
On 23 April 1997 the chairman of the board of management wrote to the Department of Education and Science seeking the provision of adequate accommodation at St. Coleman's. In June 1998 the then Minister, Deputy Martin, issued instructions to the school's board of management to commence the design process for the project. The issue of the school securing a site extension was deemed extremely important as it was needed to allow the project to proceed. In October 2000 the school's principal and the chairperson of the board of management met a local property developer who had just purchased the lands to the rear of the school. The developer proposed to supply the school with a new two acre site in return for the existing school site. He even suggested that the proposed development to the rear of the school would be done in two phases. Phase one was to prepare a temporary entrance to the school site to allow for the new school to be built. When that school was completed, phase two of the project would see the existing school being knocked, allowing for the rest of the development to be completed. A proposal outlining all of this was forwarded to the Department of Education and Science in December 2000. A Department architect viewed the new site shortly afterwards but no recommendations were made until March 2000 when a feasibility study was requested. The study was completed in May and forwarded to the Department.
In September 2001 the developer, frustrated by the inaction of the Department of Education and Science, made one last offer to the school's board of management. A school site was offered to the board of management for a paltry amount with payment required within three weeks, otherwise the deal was off. A decision to pay the sum was communicated to the Department and a commitment was sought that it would build a new school on the site. Further clarification was sought by the Department regarding the fact that the site proposed was to be serviced. Eventually and way beyond the deadline set by the developer, that commitment was given. By this time the developer had gone elsewhere to seek an entrance to his lands that would allow him to proceed with his project. A recent meeting with the developer, who needs to commence his project immediately, will probably result in the existing school being demolished along with the provision of temporary accommodation on a portion of the new school site. A proposal from the developer that is to be issued to the school's board of management, envisages that he will prepare the temporary site and may even provide the temporary accommodation. However, that will only be in the short-term. The reality is that a new site for the new school is being provided by the school's board of management. A temporary site and accommodation in the interim is being provided by a property developer.
The net question which parents, the board of management, teachers and pupils are asking is "Where is the evidence of the commitment of the Department of Education and Science to this project?". If the Department does not seize this opportunity the project will eventually cost the Exchequer, the State and taxpayers much more than it should have.