Andrew Dismore

From: Andrew Dismore
Sent: Tue 07/11/2017 17:34

To: Hooton, John
Cc: ‘Arjun Mittra’
Subject: Ark Academy

Dear Mr Hooton,

Further to my earlier email, my attention has been drawn to a recording of the committee meeting on You Tube. Here is a transcription of the start of Val White’s presentation, where you will see that her leading argument is over the cost implications of a refusal:

Transcript of Val White Comments at Planning Committee:

Thank you chair, my name is Val White, programme director for education and learning.

{slide 1} The first slide shows and sets out the need for secondary school places across the borough. You’ll see on the right-hand side forms of entry are basically classes of 30, so by 2022 we are projecting that we will need around 22 forms of entry; that’s the equivalent of 3 or 4 secondary schools in the borough. The proposal for tonight is for a 6-form entry school and that’s funded entirely by the Department for Education, which represents an investment into the borough of infrastructure of around £30 million. These are the costs that the council would need to find if this proposal doesn’t go ahead.

I believe this fully supports the arguments in my previous emails. I await hearing from you.

Best regards

Andrew Dismore AM

London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden
LONDON 

ASSEMBLY

LABOUR

City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London
SE1 2AA

Tel: 020 7983 5529

www.london.gov.uk

 

From: Andrew Dismore
Sent: Tue 07/11/2017 13:05
To: Hooton, John
Cc: ‘Arjun Mittra’ ‘Andrew Dismore’
Subject: RE: Underhill Stadium And Hockey Club, Barnet Lane, Barnet, EN5 2DN:- 17/4840/FUL

Dear Mr Hooton,

Thank you for your email. To clarify one point, I sent you a subsequent email to correct the position, in that it was Val White, not the chair, who referred to the funding issue in the introduction of the item at committee.

Turning to the substantive point, Ms White did rather more than say what you record. She said in terms that the Ark school would be paid for by the EFA and if not approved then the council would have to fund other places from its own resources.

As you may be aware I have submitted an FoI request for her notes used for the committee introduction which I expect to clarify this point along with my other FoI request referring to other background documents and emails.

The key issue here, though, and which I think you accept from the tone of your reply, is that who funds the school is not a relevant planning consideration, and if taken into account would be an irrelevant factor which renders the decision at risk of judicial review.

Thus, the point having been made by a senior officer in her introduction, it is incumbent on either the planning officer, the committee clerk, legal officer, or chair to inform the committee, in terms, that it is not a relevant consideration and should be discounted from any consideration by the members. This was not done, a fact which I believe from your reply you also accept.

The question as to whether it was referred to in member discussion is not relevant, as many issues relating to the officers’ introductions and the committee report were not discussed either.

It cannot be asserted that an issue of such importance, standing before the committee and uncorrected, was not in the minds of at least some of the members when they took the decision, and bearing in mind the application was passed by a majority of just one vote, the risk of an irrelevant factor being taken into account is a clear one. The decision is potentially judicially reviewable and to avoid this and the consequent legal costs that would be incurred, I would suggest that the safest course is for the decision to be referred back and taken again, preferably by a differently constituted committee.

Concerning the comments by Cllr Prentice, I also do not agree with you. Bearing in mind another option to provide the necessary local places (and in my view a better one) would be to utilise the spare capacity and space at the Totteridge Academy  this shows a clear prejudice by her against that option. Again, given the decision was passed by a majority of one, this also adds to the risk of a successful legal challenge.

I await your further response.

Regards

Andrew Dismore AM

 London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden
LONDON  ASSEMBLY   LABOUR

City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London
SE1 2AA

Tel: 020 7983 5529

www.london.gov.uk

 

From: “Hooton, John”

Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:32:41 +0000

To: ‘Andrew Dismore’

Cc: ‘Arjun Mittra’

Subject: RE: Underhill Stadium And Hockey Club, Barnet Lane, Barnet, EN5 2DN:- 17/4840/FUL

Dear Andrew Dismore

The Committee decision on this matter appears to me to be lawful.  The available evidence, in the form of Officer recollections, suggests that school funding, although referenced by an education officer, was not dwelt upon by the committee nor cited as a factor by any members of the committee in their decision making.

It is suggested that the Chairman made clear at the outset that the funding for the school by the government was a relevant consideration and that he went on to suggest that if the application was refused then another school elsewhere would have to be funded by the Council. Offices have no recollection that this or anything like it was said by the Chairman. The education officer during a one and a half hour consideration of this application by the committee said something along the lines that as the council holds the responsibility to ensure sufficient schools places are available, if the application was not approved, school places would need to be found elsewhere, likely to be funded by the council; but the weight of her evidence was very much focused on the need for school places.

The planning officer did not refer to funding in either the presentation or the written report and there was no reason why this should be taken as a planning consideration by the committee.

I am advised that Cllr Prentice said my grandson goes to Totteridge academy and I could tell you some stories about it but I won’t. What she might have been heard to be implying was that the Totteridge Academy was not nearly as good as the objectors were making out. A few people shouted out that this was a conflict of interest. While I think this was an ill-advised comment it was not dwelled on in any way and in my opinion it did not show bias in respect of the application she was there to consider.

The meeting was not recorded but the available evidence from officers clearly differs from the recollection of some of the objectors on the matter of school funding. In these circumstances my opinion is that the final decision was a lawful decision and based on appropriate planning considerations.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that this application has to be referred to the London Mayor and therefore no final decision is made by Barnet Council at this stage.

Kind regards,

John Hooton
Chief Executive

London Borough of Barnet

Building 2, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP

From: Andrew Dismore
Sent: 26 October 2017 11:52
To: Hooton, John
Cc: ‘Arjun Mittra’
Subject: RE: Underhill Stadium And Hockey Club, Barnet Lane, Barnet, EN5 2DN:- 17/4840/FUL

Dear Mr Hooton,

I am writing to you, to question the legality of the decision at last night’s planning committee to approve this application.

In introducing the item, the Chair made a clear argument, that one of the factors in the application was the that the proposed school was to be funded by the Government; and if the application was refused, then any other school elsewhere would have to be funded by the Borough.

I am sure you will appreciate that the issue of funding for the proposed school is not a planning consideration in law, but clearly was a factor in the mind of the Chair, and also by extension those the Chair sought to influence, namely the Conservative members of the Committee. Moreover, no officer stepped in to correct the Chair and to make the point that this was an irrelevant factor.

In approving the application, the Committee therefore took into account irrelevant matters, which I argue makes the decision unlawful, and would make this application susceptible to judicial review.

In the circumstances, I argue that the decision, being unlawful, ought to be referred back to another differently constituted committee, for a lawful decision to be taken.

I await your response.

Best regards

Andrew Dismore AM

Labour London Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden