Council could lose out on £830k schools cash
Contributions from housing developers are at risk
A court decision could cost Stirling Council at least £830,000 in expected schools contributions from a major St Ninians housing development.
And there are fears similar contributions from other developers could also be slashed.
It follows the framing of a new draft policy on how education contributions should be calculated in the Stirling area.
The policy now has to take into account a legal ruling made against another Scottish local authority.
At the latest meeting of Stirling Council’s planning panel, members were asked to approve a revised education contribution from Ogilvie Homes Ltd for a 185-house development they plan for the greenfield site next to Newpark Farmhouse, off Coxithill Road.
The panel had unanimously approved the original planning application in April, 2017, subject to conditions and a legal agreement securing contributions for education, waste, transport and affordable housing.
Of the total 185 units - including bungalows, cottages, terraced, semi-detached and detached - 139 will be for private sale and 46 for affordable housing.
At that time, officials said the developer’s contribution would be £1,426,282 - but could have been £1,747,460 if the affordable housing units had been included in the calculation.
At the most recent panel meeting, however, council planners said the amount would have to be reduced to just £467,127 because contributions were no longer assessed on the basis of the need to upgrade schools in the whole core area but only the site’s catchment schools.
In this case, it meant there was no longer a need to make a financial contribution towards Stirling High School, although the developer would still have to pay £467,127 towards the £917,451 costs of a twoclassroom extension for Borestone Primary School.
Planner Peter McKechnie said: “Education have stated that Stirling High can cope with the anticipated number of pupils from the development. The new methodology seeks contributions only when there is an impact on the catchment schools.
“It is acknowledged that this is a substantial reduction in the monies sought for education, but we cannot seek to gain contribution where there is no clear identified impact requiring mitigation.”
Councillors, however, were unhappy they were being asked to apply a draft policy to their decision which had not yet gone before the council, despite being told the change in policy was partly being necessitated by a decision in the Scottish courts.
Head of planning Christina Cox added: “Ordinarily we wouldn’t be seeking to apply a policy that was emerging however this is a unique set of circumstances. There is a considerable legal context to this, including a recent decision in Aberdeenshire that assesses it as illegal to obtain contributions in the way the policy was framed.
“We would be in a very weak position [if the reduction was refused], not withstanding this is an emerging policy, as we know the previous policy has been undermined by the Supreme Court.”
Tory Councillor Jeremy McDonald said: “We are being asked to undo a decision made in April, 2017. What does that do to other decisions we have made? We have made lots of decisions based on this.”
However, planners Jay Dawson said the Ogilvie application was “ongoing”, adding: “Nothing else has been brought forward so far, but we don’t truthfully know. This is quite an unusual one.”
Councillor Neil Benny said: “I find it hard to believe Stirling High has 930 pupils and capacity for 1100. I would have liked to see more proof of this and to understand the legal risks.
“I would also expect someone from education to be here and I want a full explanation of the legal implications and to be able to ask questions.”
Members unanimously backed vice convener Councillor Danny Gibson’s motion to defer a decision They want more information on the legal implications and details on the outcome of the council’s draft policy.