Exclusive: Dyson says don't blame Bath for school fiasco
Vacuum cleaner pioneer Sir James Dyson has urged would-be investors not to give up on Bath despite the failure of his plans for a £56 million school in the city.
The millionaire businessman finally called time on his Dyson School of Design Innovation this week after the Government which had asked him to launch the project pulled the plug on its funding.
-
The Dyson School
But Sir James stressed that civic leaders in Bath had been supportive – and that national politicians had been to blame.
The scheme for the old Stothert and Pitt Newark Works site at South Quays had faced the costly delay of a public inquiry scheduled to start in January.
The school, which had originally been due to open this autumn, would not have accepted its first students until the year 2012.
Educational charity the James Dyson Foundation had already ploughed £3.5 million of its money into planning the school and had spent four years on developing the project.
The school would have taught cutting edge engineering to teenagers from all over the south west, with £12.5 million of funding from the foundation as well as financial backing from other industrial giants.
It was also banking on funding from the Government, orginally pledged through the Learning and Skills Council, for the school to solve a major national skills gap.
But the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills this week decided to fund an academy backed by Dragon’s Den businessman Peter Jones instead.
Sir James, who began his engineering career with city firm Rotork, had been keen to build the school in Bath.
Bath and North East Somerset Council, which owns the land, had backed the school but, because of opposition from the Environment Agency to the use of the Newark Works site on flood prevention grounds, the final decision rested with local government minister Baroness Andrews.
In August, she began sounding the death knell for the school by calling the public inquiry – a process completed by the funding decision.
In an exclusive interview with the Chronicle - which broke news of his decision on its website thisisbath.co.uk - Sir James said he was disappointed for Bath.
But he said: “This should not put anyone off Bath.
“It wasn’t local bureaucracy – it was central Government that killed it.
“I quite understand the need for a full democratic process, and I think we had that.
“But it was wrong to have a public inquiry which would have gone over old ground.”
He added: “Faced with a planning inquiry and this Government’s recent rejection of our funding proposal, we have no choice but to abandon the plans for the school. We deeply regret having to give up on the opportunity to provide an exciting education for our young people.”
In August, Sir James had written to Prime Minister Gordon Brown – attaching a copy of a Chronicle leader column backing his school – to ask for help.
He pointed out education ministers had been delighted with his plans – but that another minister had dealt the scheme a potentially fatal blow.
The letter concluded: “I was invited by Government to do something about our chronic lack of engineers – something that I truly believe in; yet it is Government that has killed off this project.”
Sir James received an acknowledgement from number 10 but has yet to get a proper reply to the letter.
He told the Chronicle: “I’m very disappointed that central Government doesn’t feel the need to support engineering and this school in Bath.
“The Government says one thing and does another.
“They asked us to do this school and then didn’t give us the money for it. It’s difficult to know which way to turn.”
He is now considering plans to offer engineering education via the internet.
Bath MP Don Foster, who spoke to Sir James yesterday, said he was “bitterly disappointed” by the collapse of the scheme.
“The scheme would have been of great benefit to the city.”
A B&NES Council spokesman said the authority had agreed to approve the Dyson scheme “because of the significant benefits it would bring to the area.”
“The council also agreed to sell the site at below alternative market value to help progress the project.
“The council is disappointed the Dyson Academy will not now go ahead and understands the significant challenge presented by dealing with the 12 Government departments or agencies involved in the project.”
“The academy would have brought significant benefits for Bath, including quality of education in the district for our children and young people.
“The council will continue to maintain contact with Sir James Dyson and will be available to discuss any better proposals that may arise.”
The spokesman said it was “too early to speculate” on the future of the site.
The foundation architect’s latest designs incorporated part of the facade of the Stothert and Pitt Newark Works.
It had looked at a string of sites in Bath and been wooed by civic leaders in places such as Swindon and as far afield as the USA.
Sir James insisted that the South Quays site was the only one suitable because he wanted to be at the cultural heart of the city, encouraging people to drop into the school’s foyer to view exhibitions and have coffee.
Conservation groups have been divided by the Dyson scheme.
All three major groups in the city backed the concept of the school, but only the Bath Preservation Trust accepted its presence at the Stothert and Pitt site.
Trust chief executive Caroline Kay said: “We had made objections to some elements of the design treatment of the listed building, but had hoped that these could be resolved by negotiation.
“We believe the loss of the potential offered by such a prestigious scheme is a loss to Bath and young engineers in the area.
We also recognise that B&NES Council now faces a significant problem about the future of the South Quays site, and we look forward to constructive discussion with them about plans to address this.”
The Bath Heritage Watchdog group, set up by people unhappy with the trust’s stance on Churchill House, objected to the choice of site.
Spokesman Jim Warren said of Sir James: “The fact that he spent over £3 million trying to force through a development that he knew three years ago was contrary to planning legislation is Dyson's own fault. At least he now knows that lobbying the Prime Minister still does not overcome the law of the land. And realistically the Government skills academy initiative couldn't possibly fund a share of something that ignored Government guidlines, and Dyson should have worked that out for himself too.”
Major Tony Crombie of the Bath Society said it was opposed to the choice of site because the impact on the Newark Works, describing the school’s design as looking like a “stranded spacecraft.”
“We were all for the concept of having a school, but I’m sure it could have been arranged somewhere else.”











137 Comments
View all
by Erik, Peterborough
Tuesday, October 14 2008, 6:11PM
“I find the intensity of the intense reaction to Evelyn¿s comments, and the assertion that she is grasping at straws trying to strengthen her preservation-based opposition to the school by opposing other aspects of the undertaking, fascinating. If a project is flawed for any one of a number of reasons, then the project should not go forward. The reasons do not need to validate one another. If the concept of the school was vague, ill-defined and not predicated on a sound pedagogical need, that in and of itself should have ended the debate.
The fact that the design of the project might also compromise a significant heritage site needs no bolstering; it is also a sufficient reason for opposition in its own right. There is a wonderful irony in the cry that preservationists of industrial heritage are Luddites; who were, of course, artisans opposed to the introduction of mass production in the very buildings we now fight to save. I would suggest that the real Luddites here are those who find themselves firmly entrenched in the mid-twentieth century mindset that any mega-project, no matter how ill-conceived, must be progress, and will brook no argument suggesting that planners have learned much from the urban renewal catastrophes of the last century.
But anyone taking a few moments to understand that change, as it appears Evelyn has, will come to realize that in this ¿second wave industrial revolution¿, for myriad reasons, the built landscape of the 19th century holds more promise than the 20th. The city form of the 1800s provides a far more sustainable and economically valuable urban resource than much of what was created in the following century. Even a cursory examination of real estate markets will tell you that the value of rehabilitated heritage structures climbs faster than new construction, holds its value better in economic downturns and sells more quickly. These properties can also generate significant secondary economic value to the community (through their use in motion picture locations, cultural event backdrops, etc.). Moreover, World Heritage Site status probably generates more in cultural tourism spending than most industries contribute to the local economy.
I also find puzzling the persistent notion that listing by EH somehow shackles us to a landscape of environmental dinosaurs, the care and preservation of which commits us to a climatological Armageddon. In fact, any reasonable ¿cradle to grave¿ analysis will rank renewing an existing, structurally sound, building as far more efficient than new construction. The cost of resource extraction, the industrial production of building materials, the pre and post production transportation costs of those materials, the fossil fuel consumption in the construction process, all make new construction exponentially less environmentally healthy than a careful rehabilitation of an historic building whose environmental capital has long ago been recouped..
All of this probably falls on deaf ears for those committed to the belief that prosperity can only be defined as great wholloping doses of mega-development. Unfortunately this wasn¿t true in 1950 or 1985, or 2000, and its not true today. Sustainable prosperity comes from incremental, measured, well-considered undertakings that capitalize on the value of all the resources, whether architectural or human, that they bring into play. But a commitment to such a vision requires a community of open minds and respectful, critical thinking. I truly hope Bath is up to the challenge.”
by Bath Bun, Bath
Saturday, October 11 2008, 6:55PM
“Darren, you are implying that Bath Heritage Watchdog alone stopped this development. From what I have read they simply said wrong site because of the destruction to listed buildings and bad design. It was the EA who effectively had the power to stop this, together with the Government who withdrew funding. If the school was for the southwest why is it not being built somewhere else?”
by Darren, Bath
Friday, October 10 2008, 9:02AM
“I think it as great shame Bath lost out on the Dyson academy. The Bath Heritage Watchdog group have shown themselves to be very narrow minded indeed. Do they care about the future of our city and the South West? I think not!”
by Roger, Bathampton
Friday, October 10 2008, 8:29AM
“That's fair enough Paul.”
by Paul Wiltshire, Deputy editor
Friday, October 10 2008, 5:37AM
“Evelyn, Roger (and anyone else tempted to hurl personal abuse): When we bring in our new registration policy on Monday, this sort of comment will earn you a "yellow card" warning. Posting further personal and irrelevant abuse (whether in playground-style retaliation or not) will mean you get a "red card" and are banned. The laid-back approach we have employed over the exchanges here should not be taken as representative of our future approach. We simply don't - as Hugh Dixon has explained elsewhere - have a precise way of barring individuals at present. From Monday we will. Be warned.”