Information needed about school delays

There was a surprising lack of information in the article (Gazette, August 18) about the delay – lots of comments about the provision of temporary classrooms (which must involve a huge expense), but no comment on the dust and noise to which the site will be subjected while the project is completed.

The weather in 2011 has been exceptionally dry in this region and there are many good, unemployed tradesmen in the area.

It seems amazing that enormous old people’s homes can be completed, and even the Olympic building preparation is well ahead of schedule. The A3 tunnel at Hindhead, Surrey, is also on time and on budget.

Yet such an important local facility as a school is unable to be completed on time.

The following questions need to be answered:

1 – who was responsible for contractual matters in the first place?

2 – other than parents, why has the local public not been informed?

3 – did the contract have a penalty clause in relation to completion?

4 – was it a PFI contract?

In the end, whatever the arrangements have been and whoever made them, it is public money and we are at least entitled to an explanation.

Margaret Boulton,

St Mary’s Close,

Littlehampton

A spokesman for West Sussex County Council replied: “Whilst the work is not PFI it has been procured through a regional framework using a multi-national contractor.

“Full public consultation was undertaken at the time of publishing notices to reorganise primary education in Littlehampton and the public were also able to respond to the planning applications for the building works at each site.

“Throughout the life of the project there has been a very high level of parental interest in the project and whilst the contractor is working to bring things to a satisfactory conclusion, there is the opportunity within the contract for West Sussex County Council to apply charges for damages in certain circumstances.

“The head teacher has written to all parents to update them about the project.”