News | Judicial review


downsmail.co.uk Council ‘risks all’ in court bale


MAIDSTONE Borough Council (MBC) is set to challenge the judgement by the High Court over its failed application for a judicial reviewinto road levies. WeunderstandthatMBCwillpur-


sue anapplicationfor “oral reconsid- eration” on advice fromits barrister. The council leadership has agreed


to go ahead with the new strategy with the viewto achieving clarity on whether the actioncouldget through aHighCourt hearing. Ajudge rejectedanapplicationfor


a judicial review into how Kent County Council, the road building authority, uses cash from developer contributions (S106money). KCC wants to use £200,000 from


threedevelopmentsontheA274 Sut- tonRoadtocarryout surveys intothe viability of a Leeds-Langley relief road. Mrs Justice Lang orderedMBC to


pay£9,000 costs toKCCunless either sidemounted a challenge. So far, ac- cordingMBC, the current cost of the legal actionbytheLiberalDemocrat- ledboroughcouncil againstTory-run KCCis £14,500. Mrs Justice Lang’s summary


stated: “In my view, the claimant (MBC) has not presented arguable grounds that thedefendant's (KCC’s) decision was unlawful. Whilst the defendant's approach is controver- sial, it cannot be characterised as ir- rational, nor can it plausibly be contended that the defendant failed to take material considerations into


LibDemleader ‘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?”


8 Maidstone Weald August 2018


account. I am not persuaded that there was a duty to give reasons for thedecision,but inanyevent, the rea- sons for the defendant's position are well known. The defendant's claim for costs inthe sumof £18,377.28was unreasonable and disproportionate.


Hewarnedofwider implications if


MBCchooses topursue aHighCourt action and is defeated again, as it might produce a test case where local authority planning committees lose the abilitytoattachconditions to developments. CllrPowell added: “I


County councillor and relief road


campaignerGaryCooke(pictured, left) said: “Tax-payers will be screaming fromthe hilltops.MBC just seems to want to throwgoodmoney after bad. This ismadness.” MBCsaysthehearingwill takeplace


inthe autumn.Astatement said: “The judicial review, brought against Kent CountyCouncil (KCC),was instigated byMBC inMay, after all attempts to settle amatter over the use of specific S106 money obtained as part of the statutoryplanningprocessprovedun- successful. “Todate, theknowncostof thejudi-


cial reviewforMBC stands at £5,500; witha further £9,000 awardedtoKCC in costs, should the action prove un- successful.” Leader of Maidstone Borough


I have summarily assessed it at £9,000.” Independent Maidstone borough


councillor Eddie Powell (above, right) said: "Herewe have two polit- ical parties fighting amongst them- selveswith the tax-payer picking up the tab. “The price tag is now fourteeen


grand and rising by the day. Still, it's onlymoney - ourmoney."


hope I’m wrong, but there could be wider, riskier implications for a case like this. These are dangerous games tobeplaying. It couldset aprecedent across thewhole country.” The authority held a high level


meeting on July 23 to discuss legal options going forward and atwhich the decision was made to challenge the rejection of the judicial reviewap- plication.


Council, Cllr Martin Cox, said: “We have facedsome criticismover the ac- tionwehavetaken.However, I feel it is important to establish clarity on this issue, since ithas implications for the discharge of the council’s statutory planning functions. “However,we acknowledgewhat


the judge,Mrs JusticeLang,has said. “We hope to be able to resolve this


matter as quickly as possible and continue toworkcollaborativelywith KCC for the benefit of all residents across the borough.”


Politics ‘before residents’ needs’


THE chairman of Leeds Parish Coun- cil (LPC) has accusedMaidstone Bor- ough Council (MBC) of putting house-building and political point- scoring ahead of the needs of local people. In an excoriating letter to Clare


Harvey, data intelligence officer at MBC, John Govett (left) said the council had ignored pleas for a Leeds- 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 no relief road – committed the bor- ough to 17,600 new homes with the prospect of 7,000 more. Cllr Govett claims: “This has repeatedly been ig- nored by MBC as an immediate pri- ority in the Local Plan, which is


strange, given KCC is responsible for roads and highways and notMBC.” Leeds PCwrote to theMBC Leader


in November 2015 suggesting the use of Section 106 levy private sector monies at a rate of £2,700 per home in order to fund the £50m approxi- mate cost of the relief road, says Cllr Govett. He added: “MBC, in our view, failed


in their Local Plan of Oct 2017 to build into it fromthe start, adequate road infrastructure to support the growth in housing over time (despite KCC supporting the relief road as a priority….The funding for a relief road could part have been (and still could be) achieved by using S106 levy funding more strategically and inventively byMBC, alongwith other measures to get funding of £70m. Some property developers have 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.


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