Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 May 2003

Vol. 566 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Schools Building Projects.

I welcome the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment the grave situation facing the pupils and staff of St. Michael's community college, Kilmihil, County Clare. The school, which is 40 years old, was on the verge of closing in 1967, with only 13 pupils, but in the early 1970s, with the dynamism of its former principal, Larry Blake, the student level grew to 105. In 1976 it received approval for the leaving certificate and in 1986 an extension was built to cater for the increase in student numbers. It is ironic that the then Minister of State at the Department of Education and Science was my party leader, Deputy Kenny, who performed the official opening at the school in 1986. Since that period, no improvement works have been carried out in the college other than necessary maintenance such as dealing with leaking roofs and emergency electrical works, which were safety concerns for the staff.

Today, the college has 331 pupils in a school designed for 180. There are eight prefabricated buildings, one home economics room with very old gas cookers, one science room with equipment that one would see in an antique science museum, and one carpentry room with old, outdated equipment that dates back to the early 1970s with worn benches that have seen better times. I saw these conditions last month when I visited the school and would not be surprised if the Health and Safety Authority closed down the facilities in these specialist rooms.

There are 24 dedicated teachers on the staff, all working in extremely difficult, crowded conditions. I commend them on the excellent work they do with the pupils. Even the staff room is used for meetings and lunch breaks.

For years the people of Kilmihil and surrounding areas had been campaigning for a new school to relieve the overcrowding. A feasibility study report was completed for County Clare Vocational Education Committee in June 2001 with the approval of the Department of Education and Science. Its finding was that no significant cost saving would be made by the Department for refurbishing and extending the existing building as opposed to building on a nearby greenfield site which was available. In December 2001, however, the Department rejected that option and issued a schedule for the future use of the existing accommodation. The schedule catered for 300 students, even though the college had 331 students. That did not make much sense.

In June 2002 the options were discussed again and in November 2002 representatives of County Clare VEC met officials of the Department. They left that meeting happy that the school would be given immediate priority and that the request would be sent to the Minister for a decision in January 2003. Another meeting followed later that week and it was the clear understanding of the VEC that the option of a major extension on the existing site was agreed. The necessary paperwork of agreement by the VEC was forwarded to the Department on 13 January 2003. The feasibility study was amended and forwarded to the Department as instructed. My colleagues and I as a member of the VEC were assured that it would be sent to the Minister for inclusion in the 2003 schools building programme.

My understanding now is that option (e) is under consideration by the Department. This involves demolishing the new structure, which was built in 1986 and located in the middle of the existing buildings, and replacing it with a three storey building. This option would cause major disruption for the students and take at least 12 months to complete. There would also be major concerns about safety.

The confusion about this matter must be cleared. The building project in the school is a priority. The best option for its future must be clarified and addressed immediately as a matter of urgency under health and safety legislation. The school must be included in the 2004 schools building programme. The Minister should remember that there are 331 students in a building designed for 185 students.

Tá mé lán-sásta an freagra cruinn, beacht seo a chur ós comhair na Dála ar an ábhar an-tábhachtach seo ag baint le cúrsaí oideachais i gCondae an Chláir.

I am glad to have the opportunity to outline to the House the current position on this matter. In January 2000 County Clare Vocational Education Committee applied to the Department of Education and Science for additional permanent accommodation. In May 2000 the planning unit of the Department, in consultation with the former chief executive officer of the VEC, agreed a long-term projected enrolment figure of 275 pupils for the school based on negotiations and conclusions arrived at by the VEC which was requested to complete a statement of its curricular options based on a long-term projected enrolment figure of 275 pupils, which was done. This permitted the drawing up of a schedule of overall accommodation, which was forwarded to the VEC and accepted by it in August 2000. In February 2002, on a request from the VEC, the long-term projected enrolment figure was increased to 300 pupils.

A feasibility study of the best options for the future use of the school with costings was carried out. The existing school comprises a two storey block, built in 1956, and a single storey extension built in the 1980s. There are also prefabricated classrooms. The study put forward four possible options. Two involve extensions to the existing accommodation and two are for new build. New build solutions put forward involve the requirement to purchase additional land. The preferred solution recommended in the study was for a new school on a greenfield site at a cost of some €3.7 million. Following a visit to the school by officials of the Department, the preferred solution was rejected for the following reasons: "It is the professional opinion of the Department of Education and Science staff that the existing site and building, if properly developed, can easily accommodate the extension required".

The redevelopment of the existing school provides an opportunity, through creative design, to integrate the entire school in a manner beneficial to the school in terms of management, educational, architectural design and cost effectiveness. The cost of redevelopment would be cheaper by approximately €3.1 million. By contrast, initial examination of the site on offer for a new greenfield site school indicates that it is not suitable.

That is not true.

That was the professional advice available to the Department. Additionally, the associated costs with development of the site would be considered excessive. We have two problems, therefore – unsuitability and excessive costs. The school is located on a site of approximately 7.5 acres, which includes an extensive running track, pitches and hard-core play areas.

The judgment of the Department's staff is that the optimum strategy in this case centres around the development on the existing site involving an extension of some 1,100 sq m and extensive refurbishment of the existing accommodation. To progress the matter the VEC was issued with a schedule of residual accommodation, including the extension to be provided, and a schedule of suggested future use of the existing accommodation for its acceptance at committee level. To date, this has not been accepted.

I do not agree with the Minister of State.

It should be noted that in 2001 the building unit of the Department approved the acceptance of tenders in the amount of some €139,988.62 for the provision of three prefabricated general classrooms for short-term purposes and €97,964.19 for roof repairs to the school in question.

In essence, the Department's decision is to redevelop the existing school for the reasons outlined. The VEC appears reluctant to accept this decision. It appears to be determined to acquire a brand new school on an adjacent greenfield site.

That is not true.

It appears we are very much at odds. The Department does not believe this represents the optimum solution in this case. In order to resolve the matter, discussions between officials in the building unit of the Department and the VEC are ongoing with a further meeting scheduled to take place on 13 May 2003. The 2003 capital programme has now been published. It is not envisaged that the Department will be in a position during this year to appoint a design team to the project. It will, however, be considered for the 2004 schools building programme.

I hope consensus can be achieved and an agreement reached between the VEC and the Department, that the final detail and schedule can be agreed and that the matter can move forward for final positive conclusion and action thereafter.

Top
Share