Agenda item
Newfield Primary School - determination of proposal to alter Newfield Primary School
The reasons for the call-in are:-
· To fully understand the implications for the Mission Dine Centre and to understand what assistance Brent Council is providing to help them relocate.
Suggested action for the Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee to take:-
· To receive a full briefing from officers on alternative buildings available and their rental cost.
The Executive report is attached. The Lead Members and Lead Officers are invited to the meeting to respond to Members’ questions.
Minutes:
The reasons for the call-in were:-
· To fully understand the implications for the Mission Dine Centre and to understand what assistance Brent Council is providing to help them relocate.
Suggested action for the Call In Overview and Scrutiny Committee to take:-
· To receive a full briefing from officers on alternative buildings available and their rental cost.
The Chair referred to the reasons for call in of this item as set out in the agenda focusing on the future of the Mission Dine Centre. He then invited Tony Eaton of the Brent Law Society, representing the Mission Dine Centre (MDC), to address the committee. Tony Eaton began by stating that negotiations between the MDC and the council over the future of the site had been complicated by the council using a commercial law firm which would only respond after receiving instruction from the council, thus impacting upon MDC’s costs. He explained that the MDC had been given the impression that they would be able to secure a longer lease and had also initially thought they would also qualify for rent abatement because of their charity status. In addition, the MDC had invested in building improvements after such works had been deemed necessary by the council if a new lease was to be approved. Tony Eaton queried why the council was now proposing to demolish the building when they were aware that the MDC was interested in extending the lease and had invested in building improvements. Members noted that the MDC was willing to cooperate with the council with regard to future arrangements and sought further negotiations, however the MDC did retain the right to appeal the council’s decision.
With the approval of the Chair, Omo Wale, a volunteer for MDC, addressed the committee. Omo Wale began by asserting that the Executive report had been misleading and he felt that the proposals would only benefit Newfield Primary school to the detriment of the MDC and suggested that proposals to benefit both parties should be pursued. The current proposals would see the removal of an important and well-used facility for older people. Omo Wale opined that the report lacked details of school places or expansion in other schools, whilst the MDC had failed to be consulted on the proposals which it certainly would have objected to.
With the approval of the Chair, Ravi Chauhan, representing the MDC, addressed the committee. Ravi Chauhan felt that proposals to demolish the MDC building were unfair in principle. He queried whether an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) had been undertaken prior to the decision being taken as it had not been included in the report. Ravi Chauhan commented that the EIA may have concluded that the proposals would adversely affect the local community, whilst the MDC had not been involved in the consultation and neither had any of its users been consulted. In view of these outstanding issues, he suggested that the proposals were in breach of public law and the Brent Compact. He commented that the MDC wished to work with the council with regard to future arrangements and he urged that the council enter negotiations, otherwise judicial review of the decision may be pursued.
With the approval of the Chair, Dame Betty Asafo-Agyei, the operator of MDC, addressed the committee. Dame Betty Asafo-Agyei stated that the MDC had originally been moved to the site after the council had determined that a previous building was dilapidated. The present site was subsequently identified and the appropriate planning permission granted. Although works had been behind schedule, the MDC had been able to secure the funds necessary to undertake improvements to the building on this site, however despite this the council had since stated its intention not to renew the lease and to demolish the building.
Councillor Beck, a councillor who had requested call in of this item, addressed the committee. Councillor Beck enquired why the MDC had not been consulted about the proposals and what other options had been considered and if so what had justified these not being pursued. He also sought details with regard to the timeframe that the decision had been made in. Councillor Beck acknowledged that although the council had written to the MDC with a list of organisations that MDC users may be referred to, it did not include a list of alternative sites that might be appropriate to the MDC to move to. He also sought assurances that an EIA had been undertaken prior to the decision being taken and asked that copies be circulated to councillors.
Councillor Allie, who had also requested call in of this item, addressed the committee. Councillor Allie commented that since local residents had voiced their objections to the proposals at a public meeting on 18 January, it was unlikely that they would object to the school acquiring land on public space as an alternative and there had also been no evidence to date that there would be objections to this. The council had indicated that it would seek to work with organisations in rent arrears at a recent public meeting and the action being taken in respect of the MDC went against this principle. Councillor Allie also enquired whether the proposals included expansion of Newfield Primary School’s existing footprint.
Members then discussed the matter in detail. Councillor Gladbaum sought reasons as to why the planning application in respect of Newfield Primary School had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 23 February. She also sought further details with regard to identifying alternative sites for the MDC. Councillor H B Patel expressed concern that the charity funding the MDC had secured would be wasted as the building was to be demolished and he enquired whether Newfield Primary School could instead be expanded at another location to enable the MDC to remain. Councillor Denselow sought clarification as to why it is not necessary for the proposals to be reconsidered by the Executive.
Councillor Lorber, in noting that the land occupied by the MDC was to be used as a playground area, enquired on the possibility of using a small piece of green land for this purpose instead and he also sought details with regard to the size of the MDC site. He asked for further explanation as to why the council had not agreed to extend the lease to the MDC either on a short or long term basis, especially in view of the expectation the MDC had in securing this and of the subsequent funding they had secured to undertake building improvements. With regard to non payment of rent, he asked why this was being raised as an issue now when it had been ongoing for a while, especially as other organisations were also in similar situations. Councillor Lorber enquired whether the decision to terminate the lease with the MDC in writing due to rent arrears had been provided and commented that the council should be mindful that such organisations would not necessarily have the legal expertise to interpret rent demand letters and could easily lead to misunderstanding. He suggested that as the proposed use of the MDC site for a playground consisted of a relatively small area, demolition of the building was unnecessary and he felt that the proposals should be reconsidered.
The Chair commented that Newfield Primary School was surrounded by green land and enquired why a proportion of this land had not been considered for Newfield Primary School expansion instead.
In reply to issues raised, Councillor Crane (Lead Member for Regeneration and Economic Development) commented that he understood the EIA with regard to the proposals had been circulated to all councillors and it had been completed prior to the Executive meeting. The Executive were aware of all the issues upon making its decision and Councillor Crane advised that any delay in implementation could jeopardise providing the school places so needed. He added that the MDC had been written to in October 2010 informing them of the intention to demolish the building in order to facilitate expansion of Newfield Primary School thus providing the MDC time to consider their position and future arrangements.
Richard Barrett (Head of Property and Asset Management, Regeneration and Major Projects) advised that the open green space around Newfield Primary School was public owned and was likely to encounter significant opposition if the council sought to use any of it to expand the school and the land would also need to be fenced off. In addition, it was council policy to retain as much open public space as possible. The MDC was on council land and so was less problematic in terms of seeking school expansion. Richard Barrett advised that planning permission for the expansion had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting held on 23 February to the next Planning Committee meeting to enable further consultation to take place and to allow the MDC to formally comment on the application. The MDC had been informed of the need to acquire the site for school expansion on 27 October 2010. A further letter had been sent to them in February advising of other premises in the borough MDC users may find appropriate to use and the council had requested a list of MDC users to help identify what alternative sites and services they may qualify for. The role to the community provided by the MDC was recognised and attempts to resolve future arrangements with them were being actively considered. Rent arrears may not be pursued because of MDC’s situation and the community work they undertook.
Richard Barrett confirmed that the site was 60x30 feet and would be used to provide a school playground. The council had been in discussion with the MDC with regard to a short term lease as the MDC was not receiving council funding, but a short term lease would facilitate obtaining external funding. The reasons for the lease not being renewed were due to both non payment of rent and the need for the council to demolish the building to access the land and use for other council purposes. Richard Barrett advised that the MDC’s activities did not meet the council’s voluntary sector strategy and so were not entitled to either council funding or a rent abatement. In addition, the MDC had been sent a rent demand for outstanding arrears that remained unpaid.
Arnold Meagher (Legal Adviser, Legal and Procurement) advised the committee that the MDC was subject to a landlord (the council) and tenant (MDC) agreement and one of the reasons the council did not want to extend the lease was due to non payment of rent. Should the matter go to the court, the court would consider if there were any grounds for the MDC to apply for a new lease and whether there were any grounds for compensation to the MDC with regard to refurbishments they had carried out on the building.
The committee then decided not to agree recommendations put forward by the Chair that the Executive reconsider the decisions made to take into account the issues, including legal, that were raised at the meeting and to provide the MDC with a list of possible alternative sites.
RESOLVED:-
that upon considering the report from the Directors of Children and Families and Regeneration and Major Projects, the decisions made by the Executive be noted.
Supporting documents:
- cf-newfield, item 4a PDF 138 KB
- cf-newfield-appa-excert, item 4a PDF 158 KB
- cf-newfield-appb&c, item 4a PDF 875 KB