PKC in panel’s firing line

serious questions which need to be answered by administration councillors, such as Caroline Shiers and local councillor Angus Forbes, who have been involved with this process every step of the way.”

Local councillors Alasdair Bailey and Beth Pover also welcomed the decision.

Cllr Bailey now wants the school’s catchment to be reviewed given how full Inchture Primary is.

He added: “The Conservative administration at PKC must now abandon its overzealous plan to eradicate all small rural schools and work constructively with the community to attract more kids to restore Abernyte as the vibrant and bustling rural school it was before the threat of closure started to loom over it.”

Cllr Pover pointed the finger at her Tory colleague in the Carse ward, saying: “The great campaign fought by parents has resulted in the school being saved although it would have meant less pain and heartache for them all if Cllr Angus Forbes had agreed with this position right from the start.”

Cllr Shiers said the decision would be discussed at committee next month where “there will be an opportunity for the committee to consider the report and consider matters such as a catchment review for Aberntye Primary”.

Cllr Angus Forbes pointed out issues with the school roll predated the current administration.

He said: “My opinion on Abernyte School has always been that this is a great school without a viable catchment, way before there was any talk of closure, parents within the catchment made the choice to send their children to other schools, and indeed continue to do so.

“Back in 2012 the parent council rightly identified the falling roll as an issue and begged the then SNP administration for a catchment review, it’s my view that had they been listened to then, it may have made a difference.

“I’ll work with the education staff at the council and the local community to try and find a way to grow the catchment.’’

The panel decision, published on Tuesday, was heavily critical of the council and focused on three grounds for call in when delivering its findings.

The first related to the financial argument for closure made by the council, particularly relating to a figure of £333,090 the council said it would take to upgrade the building.

Members of the panel concluded it was“clear”there“remain unexplained confusions and unanswered questions regarding the future capital costs”.

Despite PKC claiming there was no inaccuracy, the panel concluded the consultation notice issued by the council“contradicts itself regarding the timing of the required and desirable items of expenditure,”as well as containing an error on almost £90,000.

The decision also questioned expenditure for a future replacement boiler when the council had also referenced a “recently replaced boiler”in other papers.

The second reason related to the school roll, with the panel saying the parent council make a “consistent attempt to work with the council to increase it”.

But they said the council did not take any steps to address the falling school roll between 2012 and 2017.

Members dubbed the claim of the council that it would have no impact as“no more than a bald assertion that is unsupported by any evidence”.

The panel criticised the council for including“the potential for an unspecified community use”in its proposal paper.

The issue with a field next to the school also saw the council come under fire after it acknowledged an error in the proposal paper relating to the field’s ownership.

The field, which is used by the school, is owned by a private individual and could impact on access to the building.

In the decision, the panel said, because the council did not own the land, the loss of the school could also result in the loss of the field to the community.

PKC also put forward the church as an alternative community venue, but this was deemed unsuitable by the panel.

It pointed out the church had no outside space, little inside space and did not even have a kitchen.

While the school has hosted a number of events, the panel concluded it was“difficult to understand what‘smaller’ community events [the church] may be suitable for”.

The decision added:“In the view of the panel, if the council had ‘special regard’to rural school factors and the effect on the community of the school was to close, it would have had a closer look at the suitability and availability of the church and how it compared with the school as a venue for events.”

The full report can be read at https://scrp.scot/wp-content/ uploads/2020/07/Perth-andKinross-final-decision-28July-2020.pdf