Here is a summary report from last night’s meeting for you. Three Labour Councillors, Cllr Mrs Christine Robson, Cllr Anne Whitehead and Cllr Keith Ferry supported Harrow School, thereby opposing the 1,698 petitioners and 1,503 written objections to narrowly pass the planning permission by use of the Chairs casting vote. 1) It is factual but very sad to say that our heavily supported and constructive approach to provide the facilities with our brownfield site proposal which specifically used substantial non-MOL land was not even discussed or evaluated. Also the School never discussed it with us. This is not representing the people and it is not what the Localism Act is supposed to be about, and we believe, not what the GLA wishes. 2) Last night a brand new way of creating MOL was born. Namely MOL created by Section 106 agreement, not by the terms of a Local Plan with regard to the NPPF. The case officer explained to Councillor Greek that “they were seeking to secure it as MOL but through a legal agreement” Also in response to the proposed MOL changes not being adopted by the next Local Plan review, that the land would always be “secured as MOL”. The case officer on several occasions referred to the land subject to the S106 agreement in the following terms to attendees “the extended area which is MOL” and referred to it forming the “net gain In MOL”. More on this to follow. 3) There were many comments made on the community use agreement, however Cllr Ferry decided to stop further questions being raised in that public forum and requested of all Councillors that they email their questions instead, and it will then be brought back to committee for approval. The offer made by Harrow School was that it does not propose making a (40%) profit from local Schools. The upshot being that is that Harrow School’s costs are to be covered by local schools paying those costs. Perhaps we can be informed of the budget which our local schools have available to allow them to participate in an increased number of hours of access?