AC-2025-LON-001414 - [2025] EWHC 2840 (Admin)

The Trust contend that the Council’s decision to select TGT based upon their experience, governance, control, property and financial management arrangements was flawed and as a consequence of inadequate due diligence. The alleged connection between the CEO of TGT and Councillor Ring is repeated as a potential conflict of interest and as undermining the impartiality process.

The Trust also rely upon concerns in the community, evidenced by the petition and other local reaction, as a reason as to why the decision of the Council is flawed and that there has been a failure of due diligence on part of the Council who, it is said by the Trust, have failed to promote adequately it own stated strategic objectives and principles.

The Trust contend that the Council ought to have asked itself questions as to whether TGT needed the larger premises that the Carnegie Library Building would provide when, it is asserted by the Trust, the current premises occupied by TGT are only open once a week and are closed in the school holidays; and should have asked further questions about TGT’s financial management in light of the other funding from the Architectural Heritage Fund for the potential development of The Old Post Office.

The Council’s response to this ground is that it adds nothing to the other grounds raised, but repeats the points made. The funding grants from the Architectural Heritage Fund for the scoping projects for The Old Post Office and the Carnegie Library Building are perfectly appropriate and there is nothing further that the Council needed to ask. It was not irrational for the Council not to make any further enquiry. With respect to the “outgrowing” of the existing premises, this was not a matter which impacted upon the decision making process and, in any event, the Council had no reason not to accept what was being said and there was no need to undertake further enquiries.

Ground 5 is not arguable.