Consultation openHave your say by 4 December 2026, 4pm
Save Banchory-DevenickSchool · Community campaign

Our fight so far · Updated 21 October 2026

They proposed closure.
We asked for the evidence.

A heating problem became a proposal to lose Banchory-Devenick School for good. Since May, this campaign has pursued information requests, challenged the answers and pressed Aberdeenshire Council to show its workings.

The records raise serious questions about the price tag, the assessment of reopening and what has happened to the school while its future is still undecided.

Register your support for our campaign See what we found ↓

01 / What the evidence shows

A permanent loss.
Unanswered questions.

These are the findings driving our challenge. Each links to the record behind it. The questions and conclusions in bold are our campaign’s position.

01 · The £530,000 headline

A budget estimate is carrying a lot of weight.

FOI Review 44531 describes a high-level estimate based on professional assessments and comparable projects. It was not derived from a formal cost plan, tender exercise or quantity-surveyor report. Separate calculations, quotations and detailed estimating schedules were not held.

Aberdeenshire Council has also expressly said the proposal does not mean every item must be completed before reopening. The full package is therefore not an established minimum reopening bill. The review nevertheless says boiler and tank replacement was needed before reopening and describes the other works as essential and overdue.

What must actually be done before children can return—and what is the evidenced cost of that work? A £530,000 headline does not answer that question.

FOI Review 44531 · Council response to the 5 October challenge
02 · A phased option was on paper

The council’s own report split the spending.

£190,000Heating and water tank · first 12 months
£340,000Remaining works · year two

The 28 January leadership report set out this phased approach. It rejected the option on Best Value grounds linked to pupil numbers and capacity elsewhere. This was an investment schedule; it does not establish a complete or minimum safe reopening cost.

If phased investment could be described in January, residents deserve to see the full comparison used to rule it out. “Not Best Value” needs workings we can examine.

January leadership reports · Consultation proposal, paragraphs 8.7–8.11 ↗
03 · The assessment chronology

Which assessment? Completed when?

In correspondence reproduced in IR 44563, the council said a preliminary assessment was completed in April 2026 before committee consideration. The committee meeting identified in the disclosure was on 26 March.

The 14 September response pointed to leadership reports and an emergency-decant checklist, while describing fuller assessments as being prepared. The 12 October review then withheld draft assessments and supplied more information. A later clarification apologised for an omission and took further chronology and search questions as a new request received on 12 October.

An emergency move and a permanent closure are different decisions. Publish a clear chronology of which alternatives were assessed, by whom, and before which decision.

IR 44563 and the follow-up
04 · Keeping reopening practical

“Temporary” transfers need a route back.

Furniture and teaching resources were redistributed. Two Clevertouch boards went to Portlethen Academy. Aberdeenshire Council says the transfers were temporary, but its later response records no held confirmation that everything can be returned and no assessment of the time, cost or practical steps needed to reinstate the school.

The council separately says no other fixed infrastructure was removed. The issue is the documented arrangements for bringing the school back into use.

Calling a transfer temporary is not a reinstatement plan. Show how the school would be equipped to reopen, and ensure these removals do not become another obstacle to returning.

Resource-removal disclosures · Clevertouch boards and follow-up requests
05 · The record that did not survive

A briefing was recorded. Then it was deleted.

Review 44531 records that a councillor Teams briefing was automatically deleted after 60 days. An attendance report survived. The council said it held no presentation, script, substantive officer notes or specified follow-up emails.

The stated explanation is automatic retention—not evidence of deliberate destruction. The consequence for scrutiny is still serious: the substantive recording is unavailable.

Our school’s future is permanent. Why was a record needed to scrutinise it allowed to disappear on a 60-day timer?

FOI Review 44531: briefing records
06 · Closure was being considered early

From “options” to “next steps”.

The report for the 28 January leadership meeting included an option headed “Temporary Closure and begin statutory consultation for permanent closure”. A 3 February email then asked, subject to legal sign-off, for the report’s “options” section to be replaced with “next steps”, including the intention to consult on closure. This was before the 5 March parent meeting.

The correspondence shows how far that direction had developed before parents met officers. It does not prove that the eventual closure decision was predetermined.

The council must show that reopening received a genuine assessment throughout. Consultation must be capable of changing the outcome, not merely explaining a direction already taken.

January reports and February emails · Assessment records

A temporary move is not consent to permanent closure. Families coping with disruption should not be mistaken for a community giving up.

The position of the Save Banchory-Devenick School campaign

02 / How the fight developed

We did not accept
the first answer.

The school’s history and our campaign actions, kept in date order. Drafts are not counted as submissions, and an appeal is not described as a ruling.

  1. December 2025

    A heating fault and a temporary repair.

    The council’s published account describes deterioration in two heating flues. A temporary repair kept the school operating while longer-term options were considered.

    Council’s account of the temporary relocation ↗

  2. 8 & 28 January 2026

    Repair costs, phased investment and closure options appear internally.

    Leadership reports discussed heating risks, wider works, capacity elsewhere and options leading towards closure. These became key records in the FOI challenge.

    January reports in the evidence archive ↓

  3. Internal correspondence moves from “options” to “next steps”.

    An email asked for this change subject to legal sign-off, setting out the intention to advise parents of a closure consultation. The following correspondence records co-leader briefings and a communications timetable ahead of the parent meeting.

    Read the internal correspondence ↗

  4. March–April 2026

    Families face relocation; a closure consultation is authorised.

    Staff and parent meetings took place on 5 March. On 26 March, the committee agreed to begin work towards a closure consultation. The council reported that pupils would attend other schools after Easter.

    Council committee update, 30 March ↗

  5. The first recorded request asks for the evidence.

    The retained correspondence reproduces a request for decision papers, financial analysis, technical reports, educational impacts and alternatives. The June reply identifies the preceding request as IR 43081.

    May request and source note ↓

  6. A follow-up probes what is still missing.

    IR 43475 pursues financial comparisons, legal advice, member briefings and estate-review records. The 3 July response is challenged through a review requested on 4 July.

    Request, response and original review ↓

  7. The first review brings more information.

    The IR 43475 review produced further disclosure. The 13 October campaign report records an appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner on 7 August, reference 202601438. An independent receipt or determination is not included in this archive.

    Request, review and appeal record ↓

  8. More answers about removed resources.

    The IR 44184 review brought further information about school equipment and resources. Follow-up questions pursued the teaching boards, fixed equipment and arrangements for reinstatement.

    Equipment and resource records ↓

  9. The statutory consultation opens.

    Residents are invited to respond to the permanent-closure proposal. The published proposal records that most informal-engagement responses favoured repairing and reopening, with non-essential work later.

    Consultation proposal, paragraph 8.7 ↗

  10. The cost estimate is clarified. Formal challenges follow.

    Review 44531 clarified the basis of the £530,000 estimate and the position on reopening and briefing records. A challenge to alleged inaccuracies and omissions was sent on 5 October; a formal objection followed on 6 October.

    Review 44531 ↓ · Community report: campaign action log ↗

  11. A fourth review amends the original decision.

    Review 44563 supplied further material, including search audit forms, while withholding draft assessments. The follow-up asked for the identity and dates of the claimed April assessment and fuller details of the searches.

    Review and subsequent clarification ↓

  12. October 2026

    The council rejects correction; the challenge continues.

    Responding to the 5 October challenge, the council declined to correct the proposal or extend the consultation. It acknowledged that the entire works package need not precede reopening and said the concerns would be considered in the consultation report.

    Read the council’s response ↗

  13. Now → 4 December

    Turn the evidence into community action.

    Register your support, put your own objection on record and attend the public meeting on 29 October. Permanent closure has not been decided.

    Register your support for our campaign ↗

03 / Follow the paper trail

The FOI requests
and reviews.

Freedom of Information requests seek recorded information. A review challenges the authority’s response. Here is what we asked for, what changed and what remains unresolved.

Open each entry for the dates, scope and supporting records. Entries without a verified reference or sent date are labelled accordingly. This register covers the requests identified in the retained evidence; it is not a certified complete log of every email or attachment.

5 May request · Preceding reference IR 43081The first request: show us the evidence
Requested
5 May 2026 · 10:28
Response
Date not verified

The request sought options and internal decision papers; the £530,000 breakdown and financial comparisons; building reports; educational impacts; pupil forecasts; transport; the impact assessment; and alternatives to closure.

The reproduced response supplied reports and technical material, while saying that several financial, educational and alternatives assessments would be prepared for the statutory consultation. Some specific information was not held. These statements describe the position at that time.

Read the reproduced request and response ↗
Secondary source: a retained campaign compilation. The June response identifies its predecessor as IR 43081. The original May response and its sent date have not been recovered.
IR 43475 · Follow-up request and reviewFinance, alternatives, legal advice and briefings
Requested
3 June 2026 · 08:13
Response
3 July 2026
Review sought
4 July 2026
Reviewed
6 August 2026

The follow-up pursued financial calculations and comparisons, legal advice, member briefings, estate-review records, discussions before December 2025 and alternatives to closure.

The review amended the decision and supplied further information, while retaining exemptions including legal privilege. The response said the Portlethen Cluster review had not yet commenced and identified no reports naming schools for potential closure.

The 13 October campaign report records a Scottish Information Commissioner appeal on 7 August, reference 202601438. An independent receipt or determination is not included here.

Original review decision PDF ↗ · June request and response transcript ↗
Review dates and findings are verified against the original decision. The June request wording is reproduced from the retained campaign compilation.
IR 44184 · Review and inventoryFurniture, equipment and teaching resources
Requested
Initial date not verified
Response
19 August 2026
Review sought
22 August 2026
Reviewed
18 September 2026

The request and review pursued what had been removed from Banchory-Devenick School and the arrangements surrounding those removals. Appendix 3 records the redistribution of furniture and teaching resources.

The review supplied service responses and audit forms and referred the question about fixed infrastructure for treatment as a new request. The service said no reinstatement discussions had taken place and therefore no such information was held.

It also maintained that the equipment was mobile and could be returned if required. Later correspondence calls the transfers temporary but records no held confirmation that everything can be returned and no assessment of the time, cost or practical steps needed.

Review transcript ↗ · Inventory transcript ↗ · Later questions and answers ↗
The initial request’s standalone wording and original review PDF are not included. Extraction gaps in the audit forms cannot establish whether their original pages were blank.
IR 44531 · ReviewThe £530,000 estimate, reopening and councillor briefing
Requested
Initial date not verified
Response
4 September 2026
Review sought
4 September 2026
Reviewed
5 October 2026

The review addressed the cost figure and its supporting records, the work needed for reopening, health-and-safety information and the record of a councillor briefing.

  • High-level budget estimate; no separate formal cost plan, quotations or detailed estimating schedules held.
  • No held information establishing whether non-boiler issues would prevent reopening after boiler replacement, and no updated health-and-safety assessment at that point.
  • The council said boiler and tank replacement was needed before reopening and described the other works as essential and overdue.
  • The Teams recording had been automatically deleted after 60 days; an attendance report survived.

These are findings about the records held and disclosed at the time. They do not certify the building as safe or establish a final reopening price.

Original review decision PDF ↗ · Council’s subsequent response on the costs ↗
IR 44563 · Request, response and reviewThe claimed April preliminary assessment
Requested
15 August 2026
Response
14 September 2026
Review sought
14 September 2026
Reviewed
12 October 2026

The request sought the completed April assessment, drafts, appraisal and scoring, assessments of alternatives and impacts, and records of preparation, approval and committee consideration.

The initial response referred to January reports, the March committee papers and an emergency-decant checklist. Several fuller assessments were described as still being prepared. The review amended the original decision to reflect further information and supplied audit forms, while withholding draft assessments.

Read the decision, request wording and disclosed records ↗
The later clarification confirms sections 30(b)(i) and (ii) were applied to the specified draft assessments. The campaign continues to question the chronology and the searches.
IR 44773 · Equipment follow-upThe two Clevertouch teaching boards

The disclosure concerns two Clevertouch boards transferred to Portlethen Academy. The council’s subsequent fixed-infrastructure response identifies IR 44773 as the earlier disclosure and says it enclosed that information again.

Equipment and reinstatement questions and answers ↗ · Council response identifying IR 44773 ↗
The reference is confirmed by the later council reply. The retained image transcript has no printed reference or date, so the connection is contextual. Request and decision dates have not been verified.
Further request · 18 September 2026What other fixed equipment was removed?
Requested
18 September 2026 · 15:45
Reference
Not shown in the retained response

The request asked about fixed smart boards, projectors, screens, furniture, plumbing, electrical fittings and other infrastructure.

The council referred back to the Clevertouch disclosure and inventory, said it held no additional records, and stated that no other fixed infrastructure had been removed. That answer is included here in full.

Read the council response ↗
New request · Received 12 October 2026Assessment dates, withheld drafts and searches
Received
12 October 2026, confirmed by the council
Reference
Not stated in the retained clarification

The follow-up asks for the identity, authorship, dates and approval of the claimed April assessment; records supporting the chronology; the nature and dates of withheld drafts; and details of search terms, systems, date ranges, attachments and earlier versions.

The council apologised for an omission in the review notice and forwarded these additional questions for processing as a new FOI request.

Read the clarification and full list of questions ↗
No substantive response to this new request is included in the records available for this page.
Additional questions recorded in the August reviewFurther information and member-briefing records

The 6 August IR 43475 decision also records:

  • Further questions dated 21 July being passed for handling as a new request or as part of an existing request.
  • Additional questions about political and member briefings being directed into the request process.

Separate references and outcomes have not been established from the available records. These may overlap with later numbered requests and are not counted as additional independent cases.

Read the original review notice ↗

04 / Their answer. Our challenge.

Aberdeenshire Council
disputes our case.

Read its response in full ↗

Aberdeenshire Council says the £530,000 was clearly presented as an estimate and that longer-term investment, building condition, pupil numbers, spare capacity, Best Value and available funding all matter. It says it considered phased reopening and concluded that it would not offer a sustainable long-term solution.

It rejects the allegation of a material inaccuracy or omission, declined to issue a correction or extend the consultation, and says the campaign’s representations will be addressed before a decision.

Our response: those general reasons do not answer the practical questions. Publish the essential reopening works, their cost, the assessment of phased investment and the plan to reinstate the school. Let the community test the case before it loses its school.

05 / Check the evidence yourself

The documents behind
the challenge.

Read the two original review decisions, the available request and response transcripts, key supporting records and the council’s published proposals. Original PDFs and transcripts are labelled separately.

PDFIR 43475 — original review decision ↗6 August 2026. Original decision notice and reasons, unchanged.PDFIR 44531 — original review decision ↗5 October 2026. Costs, reopening and councillor briefing records. Original PDF, unchanged.TEXT5 May request and response ↗Initial evidence request, associated with IR 43081. Reproduced from the campaign source bundle; reply date unverified. Secondary transcript.TEXTIR 43475 — June request and response ↗3 June follow-up, reproduced from the campaign source bundle. Secondary transcript.TEXTIR 44184 — review decision ↗18 September review, service responses and extracted audit forms. Some image-only content may be absent. Transcript.TEXTInventory of school resources moved ↗Appendix 3 to IR 44184. Extracted text; original table layout is not preserved. Transcript.TEXTEquipment transfers and reinstatement ↗Undated response image covering temporary transfers, the two teaching boards and reinstatement records. Image transcript.TEXTIR 44563 — review, request and supporting records ↗12 October review, original request and response, January reports and audit information. Transcript.TEXTJanuary reports and internal correspondence ↗Leadership reports plus February–March emails. Extracted from the earlier disclosure, Appendix 1. Transcript.TEXTAssessment chronology — council clarification ↗Apology for an omission, corrected exemption references and questions taken as a new FOI request. Transcript.TEXTFixed equipment — the council’s response ↗Reply to the 18 September request, referring to IR 44773 and the IR 44184 inventory. Transcript.TEXTCouncil response to the consultation challenge ↗Its position on the estimate, reopening, phased investment and refusal to correct the proposal. Transcript.PDFCommunity update report — 13 October 2026 ↗Campaign report summarising the four reviews, earlier findings and confirmed actions.PDFThe statutory consultation proposal ↗Aberdeenshire Council’s published case, including the community’s phased-reopening preference and council response.PDFThe 2026 options appraisal ↗The council’s published assessment of the alternatives.

Public copies remove private contact details where needed. Council redactions are retained. Transcripts reproduce correspondence supplied to the campaign and are labelled separately from original PDFs. A “not held” response records the result of a particular information request; it does not by itself prove that an event never happened. Dates and outstanding statuses reflect the records available as of 21 October 2026.

The next chapter needs all of us

Do not let exhaustion
be mistaken for agreement.

We have pushed for the evidence. Now we need people behind the campaign. You do not need to be a current school parent to care about the future of local education.

Register your support for our campaign
  1. Register your support.Tell us your connection to the school. Email updates and WhatsApp permission are separate choices.
  2. Put your own objection on record.Respond to the council consultation by 4pm on 4 December 2026. Campaign registration does not submit a consultation response.
  3. Come to the public meeting.29 October · 6.30pm · Portlethen Academy. Bring your questions, your local knowledge and a neighbour.
THE EVIDENCEOur fight so far ↗The timeline, FOI findings and original records.THE NEXT STAGEHow far we will take the fight ↗From consultation to potential court action.THE WIDER PICTUREOther schools. Familiar questions. ↗Closures, mothballing and decisions challenged.