Overview
The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned about various aspects of The Highland Council (the Council)'s Public and Private Partnership School Building Project (PPP2) and decisions made regarding the replacement of Dingwall Academy.
Specific complaints and conclusions
The complaints which have been investigated are that:
- (a) the Council failed to undertake public consultation between 2001 (when the project was first raised as a possibility) and December 2003 (when outline planning approval was subject to public consultation) (not upheld);
- (b) the Ross and Cromarty Planning Committee (the Planning Committee)'s decision to grant outline planning approval was taken to anchor the PPP2 project and with a view to finding a solution to educational provision for schools throughout the Highlands, rather than being based on site specific and local planning considerations (not upheld);
- (c) the Council failed to take account of an Electoral Reform Society Ltd managed referendum which took place in February 2005 and which asked the question 'Are you in favour of the new Dingwall Academy being built on the existing playing fields?' 73.5% voted 'No' (not upheld);
- (d) the process by which the Planning Committee reached its decision was flawed because members of the community who attended the planning meeting of 16 February 2004 did not get the chance to make any representations without having previously submitted written objections (not upheld);
- (e) the Council failed to ensure that Dingwall Community Council (the Community Council) sought and represented local opinion (not upheld);
- (f) the Council failed to advise the Chairman of the Community Council to step aside given his alleged conflict of interest (not upheld);
- (g) the Council failed to consider advice from the Scottish Executive when they decided to build a new school on a flood plain (not upheld);
- (h) the Council failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before making their decision to site the school (not upheld);
- (i) in correspondence with the complainant, the Council failed to clarify who made the decision to site the school on the playing fields or the rationale for making that decision (not upheld);
- (j) the Council failed to follow their own guidelines by not having a Sustainable Design Statement for the project (not upheld);
- (k) the Outline Business Case (OBC) that was presented to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee (the ECS Committee) in its consideration of a course of action regarding PPP2 was too short, one-sided, inaccurate and contradictory to allow the ECS Committee to reach a well informed and balanced decision (not upheld); and
- (l) the Planning Committee's decision to approve the reserved matters application on 11 April 2005 went against the requirement of the Local Plan (the Local Plan) (not upheld).
Redress and recommendation
The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.