“They have been struggling to fill "Private" places, whilst the queue for Council school places increases - affordability is effecting everyone.”

What are ‘council school places”?

And that statement is just plain untrue. The waiting list of a space at any nursery in the area is months long
And if affordability is the issue, perhaps take a moment to co sided the rules of supply and demand
But as they say, you can’t argue with stupid...

Dear "this_is_cat"

There are many independent Nursery Providers in the Area, who have been supporting the Parents etc for many Decades. They have an association and they opposed this application.
They have been struggling to fill "Private" places, whilst the queue for Council school places increases - affordability is effecting everyone.
The Center of the Common is obviously PRIME real estate, right next to play facilities and cafe.
By ILLEGALLY allowing a well funded organisation from outside the Borough, to sweep in, pay the huge rent (so attractive to the Council), those that could afford, would obviously, take their kids from others and the Lodge would be FULL at the EXPENSE of the other facilities that had supported the area through thick and thin.

Whilst totally ILLEGAL, it is also IMMORAL to allow the most affluent in society to secure the best facilities, at the expense of the less well off.
For the record, the majority of those that worked so tirelessly to bring the Council to account, are in the fortunate position to be able to afford these fees. However, we choose to support the Local businesses that have served the area so tirelessly for so many generations of families.
There are many opportunities for the site, that include access to all the children of the area, and not just the RICH, bribing the Council for the best plots.... How about Goldman Sachs provide corporate sponsorship to secure the best parts of the common for their executives only?

At least we don't have ugly ultra huge pink tents on Wandsworth common..
Who are the commoners for Wandsworth common? If we knew who they were then it might help explain where/why WBC are... I want to see buildings used for all, but not some pie in the sky schemes that soak money from our already over stretched LEA budgets. Schools can use their time and intelligence to provide low cost or free visits to Wandswoth common for wildlife or ecology visits without the need for a staffed building.
Look at the ecology centre on Mitcham Common, empty, semi derelict waste of money..
A private nursery with a surestart funding budget would be ideal like Rydevale nursery used to be. Those that can pay do, those that can't don't and the criteria is 90% places dependent on application and 10% referral. It made for a splendid happy and mixed environment. And they rented out their room for parties at weekends...

I’m not sure where you get the idea from that there is no need for private nursery spaces in the area

Clearly you aren’t a parent of young children, or else you could know the waiting lists for nursery spaces is months long
Working parents are having to put their names down for spaces when their babies are newborns and then hope like hell a space comes up before they have to go back to work.
It’s a situation that causes massive stress to lots of working families, and this nursery could presumably have made up to 60 families a lot less stressed

But no, let’s waste everyone’s time with a ludicrous and pointless folly scheme and then the legal cobweb when they didn’t get their own way.
Such spiteful and petty behaviour by those involved

[b][size=150]This is an important debate - but people need the facts first[/size][/b]

[list]The Council acted ILLEGALLY in knowingly contravening the Long ACT
The Council acted ILLEGALLY by abusing the planning process on so many levels
The Ward Cllrs acted illegally by conspiring to illegally BAN an alternative Nursery group from the Common
There is no NEED for [b][u]PRIVATE[/u][/b] nursery spaces in the area (as confirmed by the local Private Nursery Association
There are many SOCIAL alternatives to this site, but because they cannot pay as much, they were dissmissed
The site is only derelict, because the Council VANDALIZED it to start using for Enable Parks & Leisure, but then found the refurbish cost too much [/list]

This not about Sour Grapes .... it is about 100's of local community and Socially minded individuals fighting for >3 years to expose [b]ILLEGAL[/b] and [b]DESTRUCTIVE[/b] behavior by the Council, to get what they want.
The Council continue to fight so hard, because it highlights the illegal treatment of the other facilities on Wandsworth Common - That should be available [b][u]TO ALL ... NOT JUST THE FEW![/u][/b]

I remember this at the time...

I believe a judicial review was brought by the sour grapes person behind the failed (and idiotic) attempt to launch some sort of local youth hostel at the site, which had zero local support and was a totally ridiculous and un-needed

When their plan was rejected, they did the planning equivalent of bursting the football in a ‘well if I can’t play, no one can’ tantrum

So instead of much-needed nursery places for local schools and income for the council, we have an empty building

Absolutely!

What is more, it is now revealed, that Wandsworth Council already knew it was illegal to do what it did with the One O'clock clubs and The Lodge ... they just buried the advice received at the time.

In the pursuit of the Illegality over The Lodge, they have illegally Banned Little Forest Folk from Wandsworth and Tooting Common, as well as threaten to bankrupt the poor guys that tried to introduce them to the area in the first place.

Just bumping this very old thread

Wandsworth Council's decision to lease Neals Lodge (part of the building on Wandsworth Common) where the Common Ground/Skylark café is has been deemed unlawful

https://cjag.org/2017/09/04/neals-lodge-decision-by-council-is-unlawful-says-judge/

Will this have implications for the other former one o clock centre buildings that the council have leased out??

[quote="viva"]I wonder if this is why the Little Forest Folk nursery that is an outdoor nursery which was originally going to run from Naturescope and on the Common has now been denied by the Council. I believe they were going to be based at Naturescope for an hour at beginning and end of day, food provided by Sklark, and then were going to be out and about on Wandsworth and Tooting common learning outdoors all day. Was so excited to sign my LO up and so disappointed that it hasn't happened. Perhaps this larger nursery offers more financial reward? Gutting.[/quote]

These are two separate properties and the other nursery/preschool had nothing to do with the Little Forest Folks situation.

Hello Wandsworth Council,

First, we should declare an interest; we are the "other party" referred to in your post and our proposal goes under the not very original name of Project Phoenix. Second, we are delighted that you chosen to join the debate on NVN about "the best possible value for the taxpayer from the ongoing use of this public asset" on Wandsworth Common. As you note, and it is appropriate to emphasise, Neal's Lodge and Cottage are PUBLICLY OWNED assets ON COMMON LAND. Whilst the council officer who wrote the post is, naturally, not identified we respectfully suggest that you consult broadly within the council to check your facts before you add further to this thread. The assertions you make in the post are simply not true.

You may or may not be aware that a formal complaint regarding the Multiple Maladministrations associated with the "competitive tender" process was lodged last month. A copy of the complaint is attached for reference. 3 of the 4 different maladministration complaints relate to the false assertions you make. A summary but in the meantime we note that the "substantive response within 10 working days", which was committed to in writing by your colleague, is overdue.

1. You assert that: 'The council held an open and wholly transparent competitive tender.'
An unidentified party was given preferential access to details of the properties ahead of them being more broadly marketed. This came to light through the (heavily redacted) response to Freedom of Information request no 2015/11797. Despite this response being appealed and reviewed by the council's Chief Executive the identity of this party remains a council secret.

2. You assert that: 'This was done in order to obtain the best possible value for the taxpayer from the ongoing use of this public asset.'
WBC was reminded by their retained property agents, Lambert Smith Hampton, of their obligation under section 123 (2a) of the 1972 Local government Act "to consider all offers to ensure best consideration". The response to the FOI request referenced above shows that council officers chose not to do comply with this, thereby ignoring a potentially higher offer, or at the very least the opportunity to negotiate one. Notwithstanding this, and the secrecy which surrounds the financial terms offered by the council's preferred bidder, is the quantum of revenue available to Wandsworth constituents, on a property of 1907 square feet, in the heart of the borough's flagship COMMON LAND, really the only appropriate criterion by which the usage of this PUBLICLY OWNED asset should be judged? Certainly this was not the view of the 70 residents who objected to the planning application for the change of use to a large private nursery, nor that of The Wandsworth Society nor that of the representative body that exists specifically to advise the council on matters related to the common;The Wandsworth Common Management Advisory Committee who did likewise.

3.You assert that: 'An incomplete bid was received from another party. This party was informed on numerous occasions that in order for their bid to be properly evaluated further information was required.'
We were not informed, on even one ocassion, let alone numerous ones, that in order for our proposal to be properly evaluated further information was required'. We were informed, in writing, by the placement student at LSH who led the process on behalf of the council, that they would "be in touch with an update ASAP." Despite this assurance we received no contact whatsoever until we were advised by email that our "offer" was non-compliant.

The initial response to FOI request no. 2015/11797 subsequently revealed that disingenuous information was provided by LSH to WBC regarding our willingness to provide information. This disingenuous information was then circulated internally at the council and assumed to be true. This has led to a complaint of maladministration as council officers failed to properly manage their appointed contractors.

4. You assert that: 'This information was not provided and sadly, as a consequence, their bid was not able to proceed.'
A full proposal was submitted proactively to senior councillors as well as LSH. Repeated requests for a meeting with relevant councillors and council officials from both Property services and Education and Children's Services were repeatedly ignored.

Finally we note that your contribution to the thread ignores any reference to the fact that the council elected to put its own interpretation on the 1967 'Long Act', which governs what local authorities are permitted to do on Common Land, "for the purpose of seeking expressions of interest from the market for these premises". As per the attached Multiple Maladministration complaint the misrepresentation of this opinion as fact has exposed the council to the risk of a Judicial Review. WBC has repeatedly refused to provide legal substantiation for its interpretation, or to share the internal correspondence between Property Services and the Borough Solicitor related to it, despite a legitmate request and appeal made under the FOI act to do so. We do however note that the council has chosen to comply with advice from their solicitors, Sharpe Pritchard, not to respond to any of our overdue FOI requests, which would appear to constitute significant breachs of the WBC members code of conduct.

We have consistently approached the Council in an effort to hold a meeting to discuss our proposal, which as the WBC Cabinet member for Children and Education Services knows, by virtue of his letter, has the full support of the long established head teacher of a leading Wandsworth Junior school, and was well received when he outlined it briefly to a meeting of Wandsworth Head Teachers. Phoenix is an educational initiative that addresses very pertinent issues around schooling today, and has the potential to benefit 5000 + primary school age children each year. Is the council's real preference to benefit just 62 in a private nursery. The fact the Council has, to date, chosen not to even engage in a discussion is very disappointing.

Project Phoenix is primarily designed to be an asset for Wandsworth junior schools (#letkidsbekids), with a vision to extend its benefits to other local children's community groups and organisations.

Wandsworth Council - Phoenix is still here and open to discussion. We invite you to respond openly and transparently to this post and let the NVN community, with the interests of their children at heart, to reach their own conclusions.

Nature scope is another building. It is not Neals Lodge.

Hello Wandsworth Council,

First, we should declare an interest; we are the "other party" referred to in your post and our proposal goes under the not very original name of Project Phoenix. Second, we are delighted that you chosen to join the debate on NVN about "the best possible value for the taxpayer from the ongoing use of this public asset" on Wandsworth Common. As you note, and it is appropriate to emphasise, Neal's Lodge and Cottage are [b]PUBLICLY OWNED [/b]assets ON [b]COMMON LAND[/b]. Whilst the council officer who wrote the post is, naturally, not identified we respectfully suggest that you consult broadly within the council to check your facts before you add further to this thread. The assertions you make in the post are simply not true.

You may or may not be aware that a formal complaint regarding the [b]Multiple Maladministrations[/b] associated with the "competitive tender" process was lodged last month. A copy of the complaint is attached for reference. 3 of the 4 different maladministration complaints relate to the false assertions you make. A summary is provided below but in the meantime we note that the "substantive response within 10 working days", which was committed to in writing by your colleague, is overdue.

[b]1. You assert that: 'The council held an open and wholly transparent competitive tender.' [/b]
An unidentified party was given preferential access to details of the properties ahead of them being more broadly marketed. This came to light through the (heavily redacted) response to Freedom of Information request no 2015/11797. Despite this response being appealed and reviewed by the council's Chief Executive the identity of this party remains a council secret.

[b]2. You assert that: 'This was done in order to obtain the best possible value for the taxpayer from the ongoing use of this public asset.' [/b]
WBC was reminded by their retained property agents, Lambert Smith Hampton, of their obligation under section 123 (2a) of the 1972 Local government Act "to consider all offers to ensure best consideration". The response to the FOI request referenced above shows that council officers chose not to do comply with this, thereby ignoring a potentially higher offer, or at the very least the opportunity to negotiate one. Notwithstanding this, and the secrecy which surrounds the financial terms offered by the council's preferred bidder, is the quantum of revenue available to Wandsworth constituents, on a property of 1907 square feet, in the heart of the borough's flagship [b]COMMON LAND[/b], really the only appropriate criterion by which the usage of this [b]PUBLICLY OWNED [/b]asset should be judged? Certainly this was not the view of the 70 residents who objected to the planning application for the change of use to a large private nursery, nor that of The Wandsworth Society nor that of the representative body that exists specifically to advise the council on matters related to the common;The Wandsworth Common Management Advisory Committee who did likewise.

[b]3.You assert that: 'An incomplete bid was received from another party. This party was informed on numerous occasions that in order for their bid to be properly evaluated further information was required.'[/b]
We were not informed, on even one ocassion, let alone numerous ones, that in order for our proposal to be properly evaluated further information was required'. We were informed, in writing, by the placement student at LSH who led the process on behalf of the council, that they would "be in touch with an update ASAP." Despite this assurance we received no contact whatsoever until we were advised by email that our "offer" was non-compliant.

The initial response to FOI request no. 2015/11797 subsequently revealed that disingenuous information was provided by LSH to WBC regarding our willingness to provide information. This [b]disingenuous information [/b]was then circulated internally at the council and assumed to be true. This has led to a complaint of maladministration as council officers failed to properly manage their appointed contractors.

[b]4. You assert that: 'This information was not provided and sadly, as a consequence, their bid was not able to proceed.' [/b]
A full proposal was submitted proactively to senior councillors as well as LSH. Repeated requests for a meeting with relevant councillors and council officials from both Property services and Education and Children's Services were repeatedly ignored.

Finally we note that your contribution to the thread ignores any reference to the fact that the council elected to put its own interpretation on the 1967 'Long Act', which governs what local authorities are permitted to do on Common Land, "for the purpose of seeking expressions of interest from the market for these premises". As per the attached Multiple Maladministration complaint the misrepresentation of this opinion as fact has exposed the council to the risk of a Judicial Review. WBC has repeatedly refused to provide legal substantiation for its interpretation, or to share the internal correspondence between Property Services and the Borough Solicitor related to it, despite a legitmate request and appeal made under the FOI act to do so. We do however note that the council has chosen to comply with advice from their solicitors, Sharpe Pritchard, not to respond to any of our overdue FOI requests, which would appear to constitute significant breachs of the WBC members code of conduct.

We have consistently approached the Council in an effort to hold a meeting to discuss our proposal, which as the WBC Cabinet member for Children and Education Services knows, by virtue of his letter, has the full support of the long established head teacher of a leading Wandsworth Junior school, and was well received when he outlined it briefly to a meeting of Wandsworth Head Teachers. Phoenix is an educational initiative that addresses very pertinent issues around schooling today, and has the potential to benefit 5000 + primary school age children each year. Is the council's real preference to benefit just 62 in a private nursery. The fact the Council has, to date, chosen not to even engage in a discussion is very disappointing.

Project Phoenix is primarily designed to be an asset for Wandsworth junior schools (#letkidsbekids), with a vision to extend its benefits to other local children's community groups and organisations.

Wandsworth Council - Phoenix is still here and open to discussion. We invite you to respond openly and transparently to this post and let the NVN community, with the interests of their children at heart, to reach their own conclusions.

The council held an open and wholly transparent competitive tender for the future use of this vacant building on the common. This was done in order to obtain the best possible value for the taxpayer from the ongoing use of this public asset.

A number of bids were received from interested parties that complied with the terms of the tender process. An incomplete bid was received from another party. This party was informed on numerous occasions that in order for their bid to be properly evaluated further information was required. This information was not provided and sadly, as a consequence, their bid was not able to proceed.

I wonder if this is why the Little Forest Folk nursery that is an outdoor nursery which was originally going to run from Naturescope and on the Common has now been denied by the Council. I believe they were going to be based at Naturescope for an hour at beginning and end of day, food provided by Sklark, and then were going to be out and about on Wandsworth and Tooting common learning outdoors all day. Was so excited to sign my LO up and so disappointed that it hasn't happened. Perhaps this larger nursery offers more financial reward? Gutting.

[quote="belfagor21"]Also, what about providing much needed social infrastructure like doctors surgeries, schools, hospitals etc etc?[/quote]

It seems from your previous post that you don't consider nurseries like the one in Neal's Lodge part of the social intrastructure. Care to explain?