MILLIONS of pounds of vital improvements to Waltham Forest schools were scrapped without the Government following proper procedure, according to a case set out at the High Court today.
Lawyers from six councils are today trying to persuade a judicial review that Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programmes in their areas should have gone ahead.
The coalition Government scrapped the scheme, which would have seen a total of £263 million investment in 16 of the borough’s schools, claiming it was ineffective and riddled with bureaucracy.
But this left authorities such as Waltham Forest with dilapidated schools and liabilities of millions of pounds spent in preparation for schemes.
The council argues that the Government failed to properly assess the ‘substantial’ impact of its decision in Waltham Forest, against Whitehall protocol.
Papers filed by legal representatives Martin Chamberlain and Oliver Jones, claim there was no clearly defined criteria for choosing which school projects were scrapped.
It is also argued that Waltham Forest was treated unfairly because similar schemes in areas such as Leicester and Lewisham went ahead as planned.
The papers also raise the possibility that the Government may have broken the law by not considering the impact on the disabled and ethnic minorities.
The council spent millions on buying land for new buildings for Willowfield and Holy Family Schools, both in Walthamstow, on the assumption that funding would soon be handed over.
The authority was also close to finalising a contract for managing IT in the new buildings, which it may still be liable for.
The papers state losses totalling around £11million, which is less than the £17million figure previously publicly quoted by the council.
The documents state: "The secretary of state (Michael Gove) never sought any information from Waltham Forest as to the losses it would suffer if its BSF programme funding was cancelled.
“Had he allowed even a brief period for Waltham Forest to make representations, he would have realised that its losses are likely to be substantial".
"There was never any suggestion that this funding was in doubt; it was subject only to Waltham Forest's satisfaction of the procedural requirements set out in the BSF guidance".
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel