Sandwell becomes fourth council to take legal action over axed BSF projects
Sandwell Council has become the latest local authority to launch legal action over the government’s decision to axe the Building Schools for the Future programme.
It is seeking judicial review after the Department for Education scrapped nine Sandwell-based projects.
The local authority said Education Secretary Michael Gove’s decision to halt all BSF schemes not signed off by 1 January 2010 was unfair because its schemes were ready to proceed before that date but had to stick to the timetable imposed by Partnership for Schools, the quango responsible for BSF.
Cllr Darren Cooper, Sandwell’s leader, described the government’s decision as “irrational, unfair and shortsighted”.
He said: “Why did they chose 1 January as the cut-off date? Was it just plucked out of the air? If we had been told that was the deadline, we would have met it.
“Instead we did what we were told and spent money on preparatory work in good faith. Given the circumstances we believe we have no alternative but to mount a legal challenge.”
The government originally announced that no Sandwell schemes would be axed, but the nine projects appeared in a revised list published shortly afterwards.
Nottingham and Luton lodged a joint application for judicial review with the Administrative Court in Leeds on Monday (4 October). Like Sandwell, they argue – amongst other things – that the decision to use 1 January 2010 as a cut-off date was arbitrary and therefore irrational.
Waltham Forest has also applied for judicial review, and asked the court to expedite the hearing.
A Department for Education spokesman said: “We understand people’s disappointment but the BSF programme was wasteful, needlessly bureaucratic and seriously behind schedule. It would have been inexcusable to have continued with the programme. Ministers have been clear that the end of BSF is not the end of school rebuilding. That is why the government has launched a comprehensive review of all capital spending in schools so that money goes to those schools in most disrepair and to deal with the urgent demand for primary school places.”