Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


New-build city schools facing £17m crunch time

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 20 October 2008
THE future of a major school modernisation programme is facing fresh doubts after it emerged more than half the money earmarked by the city council to fund the project is in jeopardy as a result of the credit crunch.
Council bosses have admitted that "a degree of risk" surrounds £17 million of the £33m that it has committed to rebuilding or replacing five crumbling schools in the city.

The council has already said that modernising the "wave three" schools coul
d take up to 14 years if it had to fund the project without additional financial help from the Scottish Government.

This latest setback throws into question whether even this timescale is achievable.

Meanwhile, an anticipated saving of £1.4m through refinancing the contract for the city's PPP1 schools has also been put on ice, as the banks involved have pulled out of the deal.

The latest blow to the wave-three schools – Boroughmuir, James Gillespie's and Portobello high schools, St Crispin's Special School and St John's Primary School – comes amid mounting frustration amongst parents.

A report on the refurbishment of the schools, which went before councillors this week, shows little progress has been made over the past few months.

Labour group leader Andrew Burns said the question mark over the council's financial commitment to the schools "places doubt on even achieving the 14-year timescale".

Portobello High School parent council member Willie Wilson said the news about the at-risk £17m was "disappointing".

He added: "It's worrying and it's just more uncertainty.

"We really do not know where we are going with it anymore."

The total cost of modernising the five wave-three schools is between £139.5m and £147.7m, depending on which options are chosen for Boroughmuir and St John's.

These costs are based on a seven-year timescale, but the council admitted that completing the schools within this period would require "significant levels of additional funding from the Scottish Government".

Its alternative option is to secure the money itself through a mix of funding sources, including borrowing, which would significantly delay the refurbishment programme. It would mean work to replace or refurbish the five schools would have to be done in phases.

A council spokeswoman said: "Funding for £17m of the wave-three schools project is reliant on a number of capital receipts.

"In the current economic climate, a degree of risk exists regarding the realisation of these receipts.

"This is also the case for the council's wider capital investment programme, which is partly reliant on capital receipts.

"At this stage, it is not clear when market conditions will improve and therefore the position will be kept under review.

"Members will be advised if there are longer-term consequences of the current downturn in the market."

She added that a budget report will be given to councillors at the next education, children and families committee on October 28. This will address the issues with the refinancing of the PPP1 schools.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 October 2008 10:20 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

mystic,

Edinburgh 20/10/2008 12:00:06
Simple, take the cash from the tram project and use it for this.
At least, it will be for something useful.

www.SeeingEdinburgh.co.uk
2

Shave,

Edinburgh 20/10/2008 12:11:31
"Brick for brick".
3

Top Floor,

20/10/2008 12:28:37

Let's face it, the Council has zero chance of building any new schools.
4

The Jannie,

Out there, watching 20/10/2008 12:29:14
"refinancing the contract for the city's PPP1 schools has also been put on ice, as the banks involved have pulled out of the deal."


It's a pity the contract itself hasn't been shelved. PPP - PFI by another name - is one of the biggest piles of poo we've had foisted on us through politicians' blinkered thinking and unwillingness to research matters before signing away the family silver.
5

Linda,

Edinburgh 20/10/2008 13:35:19
Existing PFI/PPP contracts are costing Scottish Government £1,000,000,000 (one billion pounds) EVERY year for next 20 years. That is several times more than the building costs.

Also Scottish Government gets a fixed budget from London which is half of current rate of inflation.

So where is the mony going to come from?

If only we had been like Norway and set up an Oil Fund.
6

Scotish Exile,

20/10/2008 13:45:01
The cost of a PFI/PPP project includes the capital cost, i.e. the cost of actually building the schools, as well as the cost of operating and maintaining the schools for the duration of the contract, normally 25-30 years, as well as the cost of finance. Maintenance of schools is something that was seldom if at all done when it was down to the Counciul. Therefore you are not comparing apples with apples when you compare the cost of constructing a school and not maitaining it, with the cost of a PFI/PPP school when it is constructed and maintained regularly to an agreed standard.
7

seanie,

20/10/2008 14:00:55
The track record of PPP, in terms of both quality and value for money, isn't great. It's greatest appeal was as an accountancy scam.
8

Ghengis McCann,

Edinburgh 20/10/2008 16:02:51
#6 - You are quite correct. Some PPP/PFI contracts have been tightly drawn in the customers' (ie the taxpayers') favour and some, especially some of the early contracts, have been less attractive. A case of learning from experience.

But the point about a PPP/PFI contract cost is that it is for the supply of a whole service over the term of contract rather than simply a one-off purchase of the bricks and mortar. You cannot compare just the capital components.

It is all pretty academic at the moment anyway. While Scotland's construction industry, which has traditionally been pretty dependent on public contracts, languishes in the doldrums, not a brick has been laid on any new public projects since May 2007, when PPP/PFI was dumped on ideological grounds. Its supposed replacement, the Scottish Futures Trust, has yet to fly and probably never will.

Good Government ought to be about "what works". Thanks to smug dogma, the current Scottish Government are making sure that one area which doesn't work is Scotland's construction industry.

Standing up for Scotland? Playing politics with Scottish jobs and livelihoods, more like.
9

Stephen101,

Forget the web link 20/10/2008 16:04:50
Sorry Mystic but adding the link to such a naff website doesn't add a lot to your argument. If you want to make a point drop the link, if you want to advertise it drop the comment.
10

Shurley,

Edinburger 21/10/2008 10:51:27
ask yourself this..why was PPP/PFI necessary? Wholly due to the inability of the public sector to adequately maintain its buildings. Our children were being educated in what can only be described as "3rd world conditions", other public facilities (i.e. hospitals, police stations etc etc) crumbling. With PPP/PFI, you will have fully maintained, well looked after facilities or the contactor is financially penalised. Furthermore, ask how many new schools has our current government commissioned since coming to power...better to let Edinburgh be further polluted by an ever increasing traffic problem so it can look good by abolishing the tolls on the bridge, than pay for new schools....when they have finished with all the little give-aways, we will be right back to where Maggie took Scotland back in the 80's...god help us. Would the last person/business to leave Scotland, please turn out the light (assuming we still have power)
11

seanie,

21/10/2008 17:23:42
PPP was preferred because the borrowing was off the public sector balance sheet. In fact, thanks to accounting trickery, the debt sometimes didn't show up at all. The issue of maintainence is entirely secondary.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.