Vol. 550 No. 4
32 Mr. Creed asked the Minister for Education and Science if his Department will move immediately to avail of a free site being offered by a developer in respect of a new primary school (details supplied) in County Cork and thereby save the taxpayer approximately ?1 million. [9376/02]
The existing school site to which the Deputy refers is not owned by my Department but by the Cork diocesan authorities as trustees of the school. Consequently, the legal arrangements for the exchange or disposal of the lands in question are a matter for the diocesan authorities in the first instance.
The board of management of the school in question informed my Department last year that the trustees of the school had arranged to provide a new, fully serviced, site by agreement with a local developer in return for the existing school site which, I am informed, is required to provide access to lands owned by the developer.
On 23 November, 2001 my Department received formal notification in writing from the board of management that the developer was prepared, in addition to the land transfer, to construct a temporary school on the site. My Department's approval was sought for this proposal. Less than one week later, on 29 November, 2001, my Department wrote to the board of management conveying formal approval for the proposal. A letter was subsequently received from the board dated 24 January, 2002 indicating that the proposal had been withdrawn by the developer.
I re-iterate that the approval for the land transfer conveyed to the board by my Department on 29 November 2001 still stands. It is a matter for the board, in consultation with the diocesan authorities who are the owners of the land, to act on this approval. No further sanctions are required from my Department to give effect to the transfer and my Department has no further function in the legal arrangements to complete the transfer.
In the meantime, and in order to facilitate the immediate transfer arrangements in advance of a new permanent school being provided, I am prepared to approve grant-aid for temporary accommodation to be constructed on the new site, subject to proper physical access and services to the site being provided by the developer. Meanwhile, architectural planning for a new permanent school is continuing and my Department is currently awaiting the submission of the initial designs from the school's design team. I assure the Deputy that the permanent school project will proceed through the remaining stages of architectural planning and to tender under the Government's expanded building programme as quickly as possible. There will be no delay on my Department's part in giving the relevant approvals.
The Minister is being somewhat disingenuous by laying the blame at the door of the diocesan authorities. Will he agree that it is entirely unacceptable that a school campus currently straddles the N22 through Macroom. If the opportunity to develop the site is not availed of immediately and fast tracked through design, planning, tenders and contracts – the Department is incapable of doing so under the current structures – the developer will walk away and a two and a half acre site will have to be purchased by the State at a location which is not as convenient as the present location, perhaps on the outskirts of the town, at a cost of approximately €1 million. Will the Minister agree this case is a classic example of how the Department is incapable of responding in a speedy fashion, in the best interests of taxpayers, and is proof that the building unit in the Department of Education and Science needs to be radically overhauled?
I reject the Deputy's comments on the Department's capability and capacity. It is clear particularly in this case that the Department acted very speedily and gave approval within one week of the offer coming in. The Deputy has the wrong end of the stick and is mistaken in regard to the whole position.
I instructed a senior official in my Department to speak to the developer and establish the exact position. The developer has confirmed he is prepared to provide the site and make the other necessary provisions. I asked my official to make it clear that my Department would make the usual provision for temporary accommodation while the arrangements for the new school were progressing. The position is that the developer wants to proceed urgently. In order to do so the school must be removed urgently and temporary accommodation provided, otherwise planning permission and so on must be sought. After making an offer, the developer looked again at the situation and was not in a position to provide the temporary accommodation, which is what he conveyed. We said we would be prepared to provide the temporary accommodation if the developer carried out the other aspects in regard to the diocesan authorities. That is the current situation and I hope the matter will be resolved quickly. The problem was that the developer did not believe he could provide the temporary accommodation in addition to the other arrangements, including road access and so on which he was providing for the site.
Will the Minister accept that the developer's interests are not just in the existing school being demolished in order to gain access to his site but that he is concerned that the time lag which is normal in the Department between moving from design to tender to contracts is so long-term that it will jeopardise the viability of his development proposals for the entire site? For this reason, the case requires a hands-on approach from the Department, almost to the point of it being a pilot project, so it can be fast-tracked if the Department is capable of doing so. I can confirm that there is no problem with the diocesan authorities making the site available. The problem is whether the taxpayer can be saved the €1 million which would be needed to find an alternative site were this opportunity passed on.
I appeal to the Minister to take this case by the scruff of the neck and bring all parties together to ensure this site is developed as quickly as possible so that the best interests of education in Macroom can be advanced, that children who traverse a busy national primary road no longer have to face that danger, and that children in substandard and temporary classroom accommodation in pre-fabricated buildings are moved as quickly as possible to a new school which the parents, board of management, staff and the Minister's Department agree is necessary and for which a site is being made available for free if we move quickly.
We have exceeded the time for this question so I appeal to the Minister for a quick response.
I have certainly been hands-on in my approach. I accepted the position in the Deputy's question and said we should wait and see what was the problem. The matter does not concern the Department, rather the diocesan authorities. I instructed one of my officials to speak to the developer to determine the cause of the delay. There was no problem proceeding on his part once matters got going because, if we put in the temporary accommodation immediately, the old school could be knocked and he could get on with his business while everything else was proceeding. I also said approval would be given for each stage of the planning and construction of the new school as soon as it was ready to proceed. We cannot jump without planning permission—
That is where the developer cannot wait.
The Minister, without interruption, Deputy Creed. We are considerably over time on this question.
The developer did not express that view to us. The problem was the cost of providing the temporary accommodation in addition to the cost of other arrangements he was making and the site.
The Minister's officials said it would be ten years before the process would be completed.
