News | Judicial review


downsmail.co.uk Judge rejects judicial reviewbid


MAIDSTONE Borough Council’s plan to take the county council to the High Court over the use of road levies for Leeds-Langley relief road studies has fallen at the first hurdle. Arequest for a judicial reviewwas


rejectedbya judge amidahailof crit- icism and negative headlines about the cost to thepublicpurse ofLiberal Democrat-runMBC’s actions. The legal action related to the dis-


persal of levies on housing develop- ers to road projects carried out by Kent County Council (KCC). KCCwas awarded £9,000 in costs


by the judge, although the total cost to the taxpayer is not yet known. On July 23, MBC leadership


agreed to challenge the judge’s rul- ing with an “application for oral consideration”. Tory KCC leader Paul Carter de-


scribedthe judicial reviewas a “total waste of money” while the judge said MBC had not presented a strong enough argument toproceed. According to a KCC statement:


“KCC requested that MBC release £200,000 of developer contributions for surveys into the possibility of a Leeds-Langley by-pass. “The money would be used for


surveys and trafficmodelling to as- sess the benefit of the relief road. “The decision from the High


Court of Justice refused the judicial reviewbyMBC, the claimant in the case, and ordered it to pay £9,000 costs to the defendant, KCC.” In her ruling, Mrs Justice Lang


Council leader ‘not


sure onmodal shift’ THE leader ofMaidstone Borough Council,Martin Cox, has admitted he cannot be “100% sure” that the controversial concept of “modal shift”willwork. Modal shift is MBC’s way to try


to mitigate against the increase in traffic by encouraging tax-payers to ride bicycles,walk or catch a bus rather than drive a car. The bor- ough council hopes this will deal with the extra traffic generated as a result of the Local Plan, whichwill see at least 17,600 homes built in Maidstone. Downs Mail asked Cllr Cox and


MBCchief executiveAlison Broom: “Are you 100%suremodal shift can work?” At first, Mrs Broom said that


modal shift “can occur”. Cllr Cox then said: “You are asking a person if they are 100% certain something can work. How on earth can any- body be 100% sure something is going towork because you are ask- ing about something that is going to happen in the future?”


18 Maidstone East August 2018


member for roads, said: “We are glad that this has been brought to a swift end,with the judge highlight- ing that we acted within our statu- tory powers. We look forward to continuing toworkwithMaidstone on future plans for the town.” Relief road campaigner Gary


Cooke said: “I’mjust surprisedMBC saw fit to use tax-payers’ money in thisway. Itwas a totalwaste of pub-


DownsMail understands thatMBC wants to tie the cash into building developments on the A274. MBC chief executiveAlisonBroomclaims the £200,000 was released directly from three developers behind the A274 building projects to KCC, not via the borough. But paperwork seen by Downs Mail and dated April 2018 strongly suggests adelay in the funds becoming availablewas


said: “The claimant has not pre- sented arguable grounds that the defendant’s decision was unlawful. The defendant is acting pursuant to its statutory powers.’” Cllr Mike Whiting, KCC cabinet


licmoney.” Cllr Paul Carter claimsMBC took


“umbrage” over the use of £200,000 of developer contributions (S106 cash) for KCC surveys into the pos- sibility of a Leeds-Langley by-pass.


due to a legal challenge by MBC over this use of S106money. Independent Maidstone borough


councillorEddiePowell said: “There should be no place for party politics in this, but it seems politics is cost- ing the tax-payer a lot ofmoney.” Leader of Maidstone Borough


Council, Councillor Martin Cox, said: “Obviously we are disap- pointed by the decision made by Mrs Justice Lang DBE concerning the judicial review against Kent County Council. However, the fun- damental reasons for instigating this legalprocess remainunchanged.Sec- tion 106 money, identified through theplanningprocess inorder tomiti- gate against the impactof specificde- velopments, should not be used for anyotherpurpose,other thanthat it is intended for.” MBC’s Tory group leader John


Perry (pictured) said: "I've been con- cerned the decision to proceedwith a judicial reviewbyMaidstoneBorough Councilwoulddodamagetothegood relations it should have with Kent CountyCouncil.” MPHelenWhately, (pictured) said:


“I want to see both local authori- ties...get on with the work assessing the potential of a Leeds Langley re- lief road.”


Politics ‘before residents’ needs’


THE chairman of Leeds ParishCouncil (LPC) has accused Maidstone Bor- ough Council (MBC) of putting house-building and political point- scoring ahead of the needs of local people. Inanexcoriatingletter toClareHar-


vey, data intelligence officer atMBC, John Govett (left) said the council had ignoredpleas foraLeeds-Langley relief road. Mr Govett wrote: “MBC has effec-


tively (in our LPC view) put first their own housing pressures, along with their own funding pressures and local politics, ahead of the wider commu- nities in southMaidstone and, in case they forget it, those they serve.” He said KCC saw the need for the


by-pass long before the recently- adoptedMBC Local Plan – which has norelief road–committedtheborough to17,600newhomeswiththeprospect of7,000more.CllrGovett claims: “This has repeatedly been ignored byMBC as an immediate priority in the Local Plan, which is strange, given KCC is re-


sponsible for roads and highways and notMBC.” LeedsPCwrotetotheMBCLeader in


November 2015 suggesting the use of Section 106 levy private sectormonies atarateof£2,700perhomeinorder to fundthe£50mapproximatecostof the relief road, saysCllrGovett. Headded: “MBC, inourview, failedin


theirLocalPlanofOct2017tobuildinto it fromthe start, adequate road infra- structuretosupport thegrowthinhous- ing over time (despite KCC supporting therelief roadasapriority….Thefund- ing for a relief road could part have been (and still could be) achieved by using S106 levy fundingmore strate- gically and inventively byMBC, along with othermeasures to get funding of £70m.Somepropertydevelopershave even shown their willingness to part pay for the relief road…If ever there is a case for a new unitary authority in Kent, this is one example.” MBC refused to comment.


See CllrGovett’s letter infull,parish pages 34-35


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48