Agenda item

Whitchurch Playing Fields - Free School

Joint Report of the Report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and Interim Director of Children’s Services.

Decision:

RESOLVED: That

(1) authority be delegated to the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise, following consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holders, to:

a) enter into an agreement for lease with a Free School, which is most likely to be Avanti Schools Trust, subject to the grant of planning consent for the creation of a Free School;

b) agree the terms of a 125 year lease at a peppercorn rent, subject to the construction of the school and ancillary works;

c) negotiate and agree the terms of a Community Use Agreement to form part of the lease.

Reason for Decision: To enable the local authority to fulfil its statutory duties to provide sufficient school places in its area and enter into the necessary lease agreement for the land.

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: As set out in the report.

Conflict of Interest relating to the matter declared by Cabinet Member / Dispensation Granted: None.

Minutes:

Cabinet received a joint report of the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise and the Interim Corporate Director of Children and Families, which set out property proposals for the establishment of a free school at Whitchurch Playing Fields.

The Leader of the Council welcomed the report and was proud of the work undertaken to provide the UK’s first state funded Hindu secondary school. She asked that a letter from Thomas Eggar LLP, acting on behalf of the Whitchurch Fields Consortium, be circulated to Cabinet Members and proceeded to read out the contents of the letter. She asked the Director of Legal and Governance Services for advice on the contents of the letter.

The Director of Legal and Governance Services advised and reassured Cabinet that whilst the letter contained an implication that the solicitors for the Whitchurch Consortium might apply for an injunction to stop the proceeding, there was nothing in the letter, in his considered opinion, which would entitle a court to grant an injunction. He added that the letter was effectively saying that “we want an injunction while the solicitors find out what was going on”. The Director stated that no court would grant an injunction on that basis. He advised Cabinet that there were no grounds on the basis of the letter for it to not go ahead and make a decision that evening.

A Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member referred to the previous decision of Cabinet on 22 November 2011 and enquired if the procedures and processes were correct to allow Cabinet to make a different decision in respect of the Whitchurch Playing Fields. He was of the view that Cabinet had to rescind its previous decision. He questioned if the school and the site were right for each other, and clarified that his group were not opposed to the principle of a Hindu school in the borough. He asked about the admission policy and was informed that, as with the existing Avanti school, Avanti House did not enforce a faith-based admissions policy.

In response, the Leader of the Council stated that no agreements had been concluded with the Whitchurch Consortium. The Consortium’s project had been put on hold when an application was received by the Council to register the Whitchurch Playing Fields as a Town and Village Green. This application was subsequently refused. If the Council wanted to progress the Whitchurch Consortium project, an application to the Secretary of State would be required for a lease because of the established school use as the Public Inquiry into the Town and Village Green application had established that there was an element of regular school use.

The Leader stated that the site in question had good transport links, it would provide much needed school places in Harrow and the residents of Harrow had welcomed the proposal. She was of the view that it was the right school in the right place.

The same Non-Voting Non-Executive Member referred to the lack of consultation and referred to the issue of consultation raised by the administration when the proposals from the Whitchurch Consortium had been considered. He referred to the planning regulations for new developments and the traffic impact on the area and whether these had been considered. The Leader of the Council replied that full consultation would take place at the planning application stage and mentioned that the feasibility study had considered the issue of drainage and flood risk. The Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise informed Cabinet that the Council had been told by the Education Funding Agency that 3 of the 5 aspects of the feasibility study had been completed and they had subsequently confirmed formally that they wished to acquire the site.

In response to further questions from the same Member about the legality of the process and the reference in the report to the potential adverse impact for race and faith, the Leader of the Council said that the borough had other religious schools and it was essential that choice was provided.

Another Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member was concerned about the manner in which the proposal had been handled and the lack of consultation, which had been a major issue for the administration when the Whitchurch Consortium bid had been considered. He asked how the Olympic legacy fitted in with the proposed use of the site and the revised appendix 2 in respect of the Community Use Agreement. The Leader of the Council responded as follows:

· increased community use was key in respect of the proposal. Both Stanburn and Whitchurch schools were in the vicinity of the site in question and would provide additional community use facilities;

· the issue of community use was a moveable feast. She wanted the best possible outcome whilst ensuring that the fields were properly maintained. It was essential that there was optimum space for use by children;

· her administration had made huge achievements in a short space of time and she referred to this Hindu school proposal and the drive for a cleaner and safer borough as examples.

The same Non-Voting Non-Executive Member referred to the last statement and stated that achievements can be made whilst in power and in opposition. Whilst he appreciated that decisions would change, the administration had not been upfront with regard to the proposal as mentioned by the public questioner earlier. He asked if the proposal before Cabinet was concrete, as his group would wish to assist, particularly with regard to the Community Use Agreement.

The Leader and the Corporate Director of Environment and Enterprise stated that the 3 parties concerned were in agreement with the Community Use Agreement but that it did not preclude other uses. There was a need for it to be seen as a community facility.

The same Non-Voting Non-Executive Member referred to the huge gains made in the provision for sport for the disabled when in power and it was important that this area continued to be championed. He offered to help with a view to maximising the opportunity given in the context of the proposal. It was essential that the Council did not sell itself short. He referred to the London Youth Games and those that would represent Harrow in the games. He considered this a key area in which young people could become interested in sport and was disappointed that this had not been prioritised. It was also essential that there was free provision.

The Leader of the Council said that she had identified funding to improve sports pavilions, which would be of benefit to sports clubs. She was currently working with a boxing club on finding them a new home, for example. She had been exploring the provision of disabled access across all sporting venues and considered such provision to be an integral part of all sports clubs. She agreed that free provision of community facilities for all was an important ingredient.

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources was disappointed with the lack of enthusiasm of other political groups in what was a remarkable achievement. A Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member asked for this statement to be retracted and that his group did not object to the proposal and was supportive of the provision for the young and disabled. The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Performance and Resources stated that at no stage had any of the other political groups congratulated the Council on obtaining funding for the proposal.

The Deputy Leader applauded the proposal and referred to the provision of sporting facility to be provided, which would provide a magnet for other users. The Whitchurch Playing Fields currently lacked suitable sporting facilities and the proposal would ensure better facilities for community use. He congratulated the Leader of the Council and those involved for an excellent proposal.

The same Non-Executive Non-Voting Cabinet Member stated that at no time had his group been negative about the proposal. They considered it to be a fantastic achievement and had welcomed the proposal. Their main concern was the reduction of community use, and acknowledged that the consultation and the planning processes would be conducted in due course.

Another Non-Voting Non-Executive Cabinet Member acknowledged that the Council was at the beginning of a very challenging process. He asked how the proposal would meet with the Harrow Core Strategy. In response, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Regeneration stated that the planning process would be rigorous and that the Planning Committee was responsible for adherence to the Core Strategy.

The Portfolio Holder for Children and Schools welcomed this exciting proposal.

The Leader of the Council stated that she wanted to ensure that the proposal provided the best outcomes for the residents.