Council attacks review claims

Photo: Paul Sterritt

SAVE Diggle Action Group . . . a protest at the proposed site last year

OLDHAM Council hit back at some of the claims made in a judicial review into the controversial new Saddleworth School.

The Chronicle reported yesterday how campaigning group Save Diggle Action Group (SDAG) was granted the right to take the council to court over the proposed new £19.2million secondary school in Diggle.

Divided

They submitted that planning officers had overlooked some important provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework and were granted a hearing against Oldham Council at Manchester Civil Justice Centre.

Planning permission for the school, which has sharply divided public opinion in Diggle and the wider Saddleworth area, was granted for the school in Diggle at the former WH Shaw Pallet Works site with a capacity for 1,500 pupils. Construction was originally set to begin in Easter, 2014, with the new school set to open in autumn, 2015.

Oldham Council and Saddleworth School are working in partnership with the Education Funding Agency (EFA) managing the project for the Department for Education.

On Tuesday, Robert McCracken QC, representing SDAG, told the court that councillors were "inadvertently being misled" about the EFA funding, which they believed was fixed at £19million, and other site locations were not viable.

However, David Manley QC, representing Oldham Council, said EFA set out in a report that figure was capped.

Judge Mr Justice Timothy Kerr asked Mr Manley if he accepted that the planning officer steered planning committee members away from alternative sites ­- he said in a report that they were not of material consideration. Mr Manley, however, said this is merely the officer's advice and can be ignored by committee members. He also said that councillors were regularly told about alternative sites by campaigners which they were free to consider.

He said: "Members frequently ignore the advice of planning officers. They frequently disagree with the judgements made by the officers on all manner of things.

Misdirection

"His job is to give his advice and express his professional view. His view was alternative sites were not of material consideration. That was the legally correct advice."

Mr McCracken disagreed, saying that the language used by the officer was not merely advisory.

He said: "It was plainly misdirection. They were told, you're obliged to disregard alternatives. They were being told, you can't make up your own mind about alternative sites."

The claimants had also put forward that the Diggle site's cultural heritage and impact on the Greenbelt was not considered, and the industrial site was not marketed properly for employment use.

Mr Manley said there was an over supply of industrial land in the area anyway and that employment sites can be released under certain circumstances if there were other benefits to be gained to the area. The buildings were unlikely to be used for any future employment use, he said.

Potential flooding risks have also been raised as an important issue.

Mr McCracken added: "The flooding is a matter of considerable importance at the moment.

"The burden of proof is a matter for the defendant."

A minor point also brought forth in the claimant's objection was a sum of £200,000 to be paid by the local authority towards transport for the school's relocation to Diggle.

Mr Manley said these types of costs are inevitable regardless of the type of development.

If SDAG is successful, the legal challenge could result in the planning permissions being quashed.

More than 1,300 letters of objection were sent to the council against the school's relocation to Diggle, with 26 letters sent in favour. It is believed to be the largest petition in the council's history.

Keith Lucas, of SDAG, said: "I'm proud of the way we have conducted this campaign."

The court has now retired and a draft judgment could be expected in four to six weeks.