Minutes:
In accordance with paragraph 10.2 of the Council Procedure Rules, Councillor Conway asked the following question:
What are the implications for children at Durham Free School and for the County Council of the government announcement on Monday regarding the highly critical Ofsted report and withdrawal of funding?
Councillor O Johnson, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People’s Services thanked Councillor Conway for his question. Councillor Johnson replied that the County Council had no responsibility or involvement in the management and leadership of Durham Free School. Following an inadequate OFTSED report of Durham Free School the Secretary of State for Education had announced that Durham Free School’s funding agreement was to be ended. This was of concern for both pupils and parents currently at the school and for those who had chosen Durham Free School as their first preference for admission in September 2015. The Admissions Team in Children and Adults Services had already received telephone calls from over 45 parents of pupils who either attended the school or had chosen the school as first choice preference. The County Council was confident that it could provide alternative school places in good schools for all current pupils of Durham Free School and all who had chosen the Free School as their first choice preference from September 2015, and parental preference would be accommodated as far as was possible. The County Council would today be writing to all parents to inform them that places at alternative schools would be available and to inform them of the procedure should Durham Free School close. Additionally, staff and managers in the Admissions Team of Children and Adults Services would be available to give parents advice.
In accordance with paragraph 10.2 of the Council Procedure Rules, Councillor Wilkes asked the following question:
In the High Court in London, 15 January 2015, Durham County Council’s decision to join a consortium for the development of the area known as Sniperley Park has been ruled "Unlawful”.
One of the Country’s top judges said that Cabinet had not been provided with the necessary information so that it could take into account obviously relevant considerations.
As result of defective advice from Council officers, the strategic nature of the Council's land was not properly considered
Given that the judge has found that Cabinet were not provided with the necessary information, can the relevant Cabinet member please explain
i) why the mention of a multi-million pound agreement of such significant importance was at paragraphs 31 and 32 of a report which was passed by Cabinet with no indication in the title heading that the report contained such an important decision;
ii) and given that the High Court has found the cabinet decision to be flawed, can the Cabinet further confirm that the Council will immediately withdraw from the Sniperley Park LLP;
iii) tell us when they first knew about the decision being challenged and why we were not notified; and
iv) confirm that there will now be a full and extensive investigation into what has happened here?
Councillor N Foster, Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Economic Regeneration thanked Councillor Wilkes for his question.
The legal verdict could be summarised as:
Councillor Foster had already asked for a full investigation into the issues raised by the judgement so he could report to Cabinet on how best to proceed in the future.
The decision followed a judicial review taken out by one developer against the Council over its involvement in the partnership (LLP) to develop land at Sniperley for housing. The decision was under an embargo until last Thursday. Councillor Foster confirmed that the decision to join the Sniperly LLP had been quashed as a result of the Judicial review.
The Council needed to consider its next steps carefully. The removal of the Council’s land from the consortium assembled to develop the site did not undermine the allocation or affect its deliverability.
This was, to a degree, the result of a wider dispute between rival developer/ landowners involved in the possible development of the land at Sniperley. The Council became aware of the developer’s ambition to challenge the Council last June. It was not County Council practice to put in the public domain a threatened legal challenge, to avoid speculative public debate on matters that may have to be dealt with by a court.
There were four parcels of Council owned land which had been identified, and which formed part of the much larger proposed Sniperley development allocation. These sites had been the subject of significant consultation as part of the Local Plan.
In April 2014 Cabinet considered a report which set out the involvement in the partnership. The report dealt with the delivery of sites in the Durham City area as part of the Local plan. The purpose of the report was to ensure that the wider development opportunities could be delivered in a comprehensive manner, agreeing an approach to the delivery and financing of the strategic sites in Durham City. The report explicitly included how the council intended to market its land but in a context which also considered issues such as the delivery of roads, drainage, new school provision, open space and community buildings.
For clarity, Councillor Foster reported that at no point through this process had the Council sold land. The decision to join the LLP was a mechanism to market the land if and when the Council decided to sell it. The Council needed to consider its next steps carefully. The removal of the Council’s land from the consortium assembled to develop the site did not undermine the Sniperley allocation or affect its deliverability. For the planned development to take place the land needed to be removed from the Green Belt as a result of the current Examination into the County Durham Plan. Without this the land would not be developed and the outcome of the legal proceedings academic. It was hoped that Inspectors initial thoughts on the Local Plan would be known in early February.