This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2015/jun/03/sparks-fly-over-boris-johnsons-fire-station-school-plan
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Sparks fly over Boris Johnson's fire station school plan | Sparks fly over Boris Johnson's fire station school plan |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| Boris Johnson’s eagerness to smooth the paths of property developers is as well known as his impatience with detail. It’s no wonder, therefore, that his political opponents are giving him a hard time over his role in the sale of the site of a now defunct fire station just south of the Thames. Are their criticisms justified? | Boris Johnson’s eagerness to smooth the paths of property developers is as well known as his impatience with detail. It’s no wonder, therefore, that his political opponents are giving him a hard time over his role in the sale of the site of a now defunct fire station just south of the Thames. Are their criticisms justified? |
| The backstory so far. In January 2014, ten of London’s 112 fire stations were closed by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) following the narrowest of votes by its members and an unsuccessful legal challenge. The ten included the Southwark station, located in the fast-changing north of Southwark borough on Southwark Bridge Road. Argument then shifted to what should happen to the site. Clearly, it would be sold. But to whom? | The backstory so far. In January 2014, ten of London’s 112 fire stations were closed by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) following the narrowest of votes by its members and an unsuccessful legal challenge. The ten included the Southwark station, located in the fast-changing north of Southwark borough on Southwark Bridge Road. Argument then shifted to what should happen to the site. Clearly, it would be sold. But to whom? |
| Johnson wants it to accommodate a new free school - with London’s population growing at tremendous speed, there is a huge demand for more school places - and last December he wrote to LFEPA saying he was “minded to direct” the authority to seek the government’s consent for accepting a bid received for the site that included a school, even though it wasn’t the highest bid received. “My provisional view is that the social need [for a school] outweighs the financial loss to LFEPA,” he explained. The bidder in question was a Wiltshire-based company called Hadston, which specialises in developing social infrastructure buildings such as schools. | Johnson wants it to accommodate a new free school - with London’s population growing at tremendous speed, there is a huge demand for more school places - and last December he wrote to LFEPA saying he was “minded to direct” the authority to seek the government’s consent for accepting a bid received for the site that included a school, even though it wasn’t the highest bid received. “My provisional view is that the social need [for a school] outweighs the financial loss to LFEPA,” he explained. The bidder in question was a Wiltshire-based company called Hadston, which specialises in developing social infrastructure buildings such as schools. |
| Johnson’s intervention met resistance. In January, LFEPA member Fiona Twycross, who is also Labour’s fire service spokesperson on the London Assembly, told MayorWatch that Johnson should leave LFEPA alone to “try to secure value for money” for the land and mitigate the cuts to the fire service budget. LFEPA officers were looking into the legality of Johnson’s move. Was he actually entitled to tell the authority to accept less than “best consideration” for the site? | Johnson’s intervention met resistance. In January, LFEPA member Fiona Twycross, who is also Labour’s fire service spokesperson on the London Assembly, told MayorWatch that Johnson should leave LFEPA alone to “try to secure value for money” for the land and mitigate the cuts to the fire service budget. LFEPA officers were looking into the legality of Johnson’s move. Was he actually entitled to tell the authority to accept less than “best consideration” for the site? |
| However, the Tory mayor had the supported of Southwark Council’s Labour leader Peter John: he’d already written to Johnson, saying a new school was “essential” in the north of the borough. And after much back-and-forth Johnson issued his mayoral direction on March 26, saying the sale of the site to Hadston should be completed by May 1. | However, the Tory mayor had the supported of Southwark Council’s Labour leader Peter John: he’d already written to Johnson, saying a new school was “essential” in the north of the borough. And after much back-and-forth Johnson issued his mayoral direction on March 26, saying the sale of the site to Hadston should be completed by May 1. |
| Alas, a month later, he had to do it again, acknowledging (as a heads-up letter from his chief of staff Sir Edward Lister sent on April 2 had done) that the timescale laid down in the original direction had been “not practically achievable” and that an agreement with Hadston must by struck by May 5 instead. This was made subject to two conditions: one, that the price for the site, which has undergone significant renegotiation, was recognised by an independent valuer as representing “best consideration” by May 22; two, that satisfactory planning permission was received from Southwark within two years, by May 22, 2017. | Alas, a month later, he had to do it again, acknowledging (as a heads-up letter from his chief of staff Sir Edward Lister sent on April 2 had done) that the timescale laid down in the original direction had been “not practically achievable” and that an agreement with Hadston must by struck by May 5 instead. This was made subject to two conditions: one, that the price for the site, which has undergone significant renegotiation, was recognised by an independent valuer as representing “best consideration” by May 22; two, that satisfactory planning permission was received from Southwark within two years, by May 22, 2017. |
| That agreement with Hadston has now been reached. But Johnson’s critics remain displeased. They say they are happy for the site to host a school, but don’t like Johnson throwing his weight about. There are complaints that the unachievable schedule he’d originally set and the hurried revisions that followed resulted from a desire to get the Hadston deal done before the general election on May 7, an election that most of us - including, it may seem, the mayor - had not expected the Conservatives to win. Had Ed Miliband become prime minister, the whole future of free schools might have been in doubt. | That agreement with Hadston has now been reached. But Johnson’s critics remain displeased. They say they are happy for the site to host a school, but don’t like Johnson throwing his weight about. There are complaints that the unachievable schedule he’d originally set and the hurried revisions that followed resulted from a desire to get the Hadston deal done before the general election on May 7, an election that most of us - including, it may seem, the mayor - had not expected the Conservatives to win. Had Ed Miliband become prime minister, the whole future of free schools might have been in doubt. |
| More seriously, Liberal Democrat AM and LFEPA member Stephen Knight has accused the mayor of “reckless naivety” in his approach, pointing to a requirement that Hadston uses its “best endeavours” to get permission for a development that includes a school. Knight has characterised this as a get-out clause which could enable Hadston to avoid building a school at all and to use the site entirely “for luxury housing instead.” Fiona Twycross agrees, saying that Johnson has “effectively given the developers a free pass to avoid delivering a school.” | More seriously, Liberal Democrat AM and LFEPA member Stephen Knight has accused the mayor of “reckless naivety” in his approach, pointing to a requirement that Hadston uses its “best endeavours” to get permission for a development that includes a school. Knight has characterised this as a get-out clause which could enable Hadston to avoid building a school at all and to use the site entirely “for luxury housing instead.” Fiona Twycross agrees, saying that Johnson has “effectively given the developers a free pass to avoid delivering a school.” |
| Knight claims Hadston has a “US-based private equity backer,” but does not name it. I understand, however, that this is reference to Westbrook Partners, whose activities in London have attracted some unfavourable media coverage, most notably in relation to the New Era housing estate in Hoxton. However, Hadston chairman Jeffrey Thomas was keen to tell me that no such arrangement with Westbrook exists. He said Hadston had spoken to a number of potential backers in connection with the project, and that these had included Westbrook. But Thomas was at pains to stress that if and when Hadston chooses a financial partner, “we will look at track record and reputation.” He made plain that Hadston has no desire to become embroiled in controversy. My firm impression is that Westbrook can be ruled out. | Knight claims Hadston has a “US-based private equity backer,” but does not name it. I understand, however, that this is reference to Westbrook Partners, whose activities in London have attracted some unfavourable media coverage, most notably in relation to the New Era housing estate in Hoxton. However, Hadston chairman Jeffrey Thomas was keen to tell me that no such arrangement with Westbrook exists. He said Hadston had spoken to a number of potential backers in connection with the project, and that these had included Westbrook. But Thomas was at pains to stress that if and when Hadston chooses a financial partner, “we will look at track record and reputation.” He made plain that Hadston has no desire to become embroiled in controversy. My firm impression is that Westbrook can be ruled out. |
| Meanwhile, the view from Southwark Council is that the words “best endeavours” routinely find their way into legal agreements and should not be taken as sinister. A well placed City Hall source adds: “You never know what you might find when you examine these old sites. There could be a plague pit down there, or anything.” There’s also some irritation at Southwark that “LFEPA got into a battle with Boris without asking us or the community what we wanted.” It was emphasised that the council really wants its new school, which would be a non-denominational mixed secondary, and that any planning application offering anything less would be met with a dusty response. I’ll be surprised if the school isn’t built. Watch that space. | |