Council response to the 5 October consultation challenge

TRANSCRIPT OF COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE
Reply to the campaign’s email of 5 October 2026, referring to its objection of 6 October. The sent date is not shown in the retained text.

Dear Mr Forbes

Thank you for your email of 5 October 2026 regarding the statutory consultation on the proposed closure of Banchory-Devenick School and your request that the matters raised be considered under section 5 of the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010.

The Council has reviewed the points raised in your correspondence alongside the published proposal paper and the information disclosed through FOI Review 44531. Having done so, the Council does not currently consider that the matters raised identify any material inaccuracy or omission requiring correction of the proposal paper.

1. Basis of the £530,000 estimate

You state that the proposal paper omits material information regarding the basis and reliability of the estimated £530,000 repair and maintenance cost.
The Council does not accept that there is a material omission.
The proposal paper does not present the figure as a detailed cost plan, tendered price or quantity surveyor estimate. The costs are clearly presented as estimated or budget costs arising from a high-level assessment of the school's condition and future investment requirements. The proposal paper explains that the assessment was informed by condition information, technical advice, professional judgement and budget estimates.
The information subsequently disclosed through the FOI process is consistent with that description.

2. Whether £530,000 must be spent before reopening

You suggest that the proposal paper creates the impression that the full £530,000 would require to be spent before the school could reopen.
The Council does not accept that the proposal paper states or implies this.
The proposal paper identifies the estimated investment requirements associated with retaining Banchory-Devenick School as an operational and sustainable school building. It considers both immediate infrastructure issues and wider lifecycle requirements affecting the property. It does not state that every identified item of expenditure would necessarily require to be completed before any reopening could take place.
The Council is entitled to consider the overall condition, future investment requirements and long-term sustainability of the asset when assessing the future of education provision.

3. Recorded evidence relating to non-boiler works

You argue that it is a material omission that the Council does not hold information demonstrating that each of the non-boiler works would prevent reopening.
The Council does not accept that this represents a material omission in the proposal paper.
The proposal is not founded on an assertion that each individual item of work would independently prevent reopening. Rather, it considers the cumulative condition of the building, identified infrastructure requirements, asset sustainability, available capacity elsewhere within the school estate and wider Best Value considerations
The proposal paper accurately describes those considerations.

4. Health and safety assessment

You state that the absence of an updated health and safety assessment is material information that should have been disclosed.
The Council does not accept that this amounts to a material omission.
The proposal paper does not state that an updated health and safety assessment had been undertaken. The Council's assessment was informed by building condition information, maintenance knowledge, technical advice, school roll forecasts, capacity information and wider estate planning considerations.
The existence or otherwise of a separate updated health and safety assessment does not alter the basis upon which the proposal was developed.

5. Minimum reopening option

You argue that the proposal should have included a minimum-cost reopening option.
The Council notes that the proposal paper specifically considers the option of undertaking works to allow the school to become operational and also addresses representations received during informal engagement advocating a phased approach to repairs.
The Council concluded that this would not provide a sustainable long-term solution when considered against wider estate investment requirements, surplus capacity within the Portlethen Cluster, Best Value obligations and the absence of identified capital funding.
The Council is satisfied that the proposal paper appropriately explains the reasons why this option was not taken forward.

Proposed correction, correction notice and extension of consultation

Having reviewed the matters raised, the Council remains satisfied that the proposal paper accurately describes:

•       the circumstances leading to the school becoming non-operational;
•       the condition and infrastructure issues affecting the building;
•       the estimated investment requirements identified through officer assessment;
•       the alternatives considered; and
•       the reasons for undertaking a statutory consultation on closure.

Accordingly, the Council does not currently consider that correction of the proposal paper, the issue of a correction notice, or an extension of the consultation period is warranted. The Council remains satisfied that consultees have sufficient information to understand the proposal and make representations through the statutory consultation process.

Conclusion

The Council has carefully considered the matters raised in your correspondence. While it recognises that you disagree with aspects of the Council's assessment and conclusions, the Council does not currently consider that the issues identified constitute material inaccuracies or omissions requiring correction of the proposal paper. In terms of section 5(2)(c) of the 2010 Act, we require to invite you to make representations to the authority if you disagree with this determination. I am aware you have submitted a formal objection dated 6 October 2026 and perhaps you could confirm whether you wish that to be taken as your further representation.

Your current correspondence will be treated as a formal consultation representation and will be recorded and considered alongside all other responses received during the consultation period. The matters raised will be addressed as part of the statutory consultation reporting process before any decision is taken on the proposal.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Marie Davies Macleod
Head of Resources & Performance
Education and Children's Services
Aberdeenshire Council