Town campaigners were shut out of a debate that determined Angus Council will pursue a Court of Session appeal in its bid to create a £8 million Arbroath “superschool”.
Following last week’s rejection by Education Secretary Michael Russell of the plan for one Hospitalfield school to replace the existing primaries of Timmergreens and Muirfield, members of the action group fighting the proposal had hoped to learn whether the authority planned to challenge the decision by mounting a judicial review.
At a full meeting of the council in Forfar on Thursday, the Arbroath schools issue was one of three items listed on the agenda to be taken in private and opposition councillors failed in an attempt to have the matter brought into the public domain.
Outside the debating chamber, Muirfield Action Group campaigners described the exclusion decision as ”a disgrace”.
They had heard SNP group leader and Carnoustie councillor Helen Oswald lead an attempt to have two of the three ‘green-paper’ items relating to Arbroath schools and a Carnoustie charitable status request taken in public.
Fellow Carnoustie councillor Brian Boyd, an independent, said the Carnoustie matter had already been aired in a public forum at the town’s community council, but further discussion was quickly curtailed.
The council’s legal chief Sheona Hunter warned elected members: ”It is certainly not appropriate to breach the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by mentioning the names of companies or organisations,” before Provost Ruth Leslie Melville proceeded straight to a vote on whether the two items should be taken in public.
Independents Mr Boyd and Bob Spink both sided with an opposition motion to have the Arbroath and Carnoustie agenda items heard in open debate, but the weight of administration Angus Alliance votes carried the outcome 15-14.
Following their expulsion from the meeting, Karen Smith of MAG said: ”We basically wanted to hear what was going to happen and this was the perfect opportunity for the council to be open, honest and transparent all of the things that the minister said they had not been.
”They have basically proved what the Scottish Government have said and that’s not very democratic in my view,” she added.
Arbroath councillor Sheena Welsh said: ”I believe the decision of the minister was fully and fairly arrived at and that the civil servants who looked into the matters to which they were alerted did so justly and without prejudice.
”The letter stated that permission had been refused because the consultation was flawed, there were inaccuracies in how the condition rating had been derived, there was lack of supporting evidence about how certain decisions regarding the condition of the school had been arrived at, there was no audit trail and that essential documentary evidence was lacking in certain respects.
”The finding was that the council’s consultation had not been fully transparent and there is no doubt in my mind that is the correct finding.”
She continued: ”By continuing to deny this, the leader of the council is in danger of bringing the good name of this council into disrepute. To proceed to judicial review is a waste of a considerable sum of public money.”
Mrs Oswald said: ”This issue has been well rehearsed in the press with (education convener) Cllr Nield stating that the council will go to judicial review, so it looks like the decision has already been made.”Council confirms court moveAngus Council later confirmed it will mount a Court of Session challenge to the education secretary’s decision.
Tense proceedings resulted in a narrow private vote on the issue.
A council spokesman said: ”Report no. 114/12 was considered in private by Angus Council and certain information contained within the report remains exempt from disclosure.
”The council can confirm that elected members voted 16 votes to 13 in favour of commencing judicial review proceedings in the Court of Session to challenge the legality of the decision of the Scottish ministers to refuse to consent to the closure of Muirfield and Timmergreens primary schools in Arbroath. This matter will be reported in the minute of the meeting in due course.”
A figure of £40,000 has been suggested as the likely cost of pursuing the case, but the authority has declined to comment on that estimate or the likely grounds of the challenge.
”As this moves into the legal process the council will be unable to make any further comment on the matter,” the spokesman added.