Legal challenge row as protesters gather
Council leader criticises BLP case as campaigners stage latest town hall demo
The leader of the council has blasted a legal challenge against the Borough Local Plan (BLP) less than a week after a High Court judge refused a time extension for the case, writes Shay Bottomley.
In attacks at both a public meeting and on social media, Cllr Andrew Johnson (Con, Hurley & the Walthams) said the ‘politically driven’ challenge had cost the council £38,000, according to a Freedom of Information request.
His comments sparked outrage from opposition councillors, with Cllr Geoff Hill (tBFI, Oldfield) insisting on Twitter that it was an ‘environmentally driven’ challenge, rather than a political one.
The row took place against the backdrop of Tuesday’s packed full council meeting, which was preceded by a public protest outside the town hall involving campaigners and members of the Extinction Rebellion group (see p6). The meeting involved a debate on a petition for improved air quality measuring in the borough (see p3).
The BLP dispute in the meeting began when discussing the Joint Central and Eastern Berkshire (JCEB) Minerals and Waste Plan, which was to be adopted on Tuesday evening.
During the debate, opposition leader Simon Werner said the lack of consultation with residents echoed that of the BLP.
Whilst the BLP was not due to be discussed at the meeting, the issue remained throughout the debate, with Cllr Johnson hitting back against concerns over the robustness of the JCEB minerals and waste plan.
“I don’t want to see another badly botched legal challenge come in against a major plank of planning policy,” said the council leader.
“Let’s be clear, we’ve heard the BLP mentioned by certain parties opposite about the inclusion of sites and consultations and whether it was robust or not.”
He added: “Two separate judges have agreed with us and the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State that the Borough Local
Plan was indeed sound.
“The opposition do have to take some responsibility for the aforementioned botched legal challenge – their fingerprints were over a lot of it.”
Last week’s High Court renewal hearing took place after a procedural error by the Maidenhead Great Park group’s former solicitor in serving legal documents meant that a formal challenge to the adopted BLP was not completed within the required sixweek timeframe.
Cllr Johnson referenced the cost to the council of the legal challenge, and concluded: “I don’t want to see taxpayers’ money wasted on pointless allegations that certain documents might not necessarily be sound or [whether] we followed due process.
“I’m convinced we have; if you don’t believe me, test it, but make sure when you do test it you actually get the papers in on time and you actually put up a robust case.”
Cllr John Baldwin (Lib Dem, Belmont) responded, saying: “Neither Cllr Johnson nor I are lawyers – the only difference between the two of us is I’m not going to pretend to be one for the sake of dramatic effect.
“However, my understanding is that the legal points raised in the challenge to the Borough Local Plan have not been determined.
“What has been determined is the failure by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to accept service that was six days late – only six days late.”
Cllr Johnson retorted ‘six days is six days’ before Cllr Baldwin continued: “The legal points have not been tested; they’ve been commented upon, but they’ve not been ruled upon, and if this council is desperate to avoid expensive legal challenges – a perfectly understandable reaction – then it behoves them to be far more transparent and open when they bring these papers forward.
“If we want to solve the inherent distrust of the planning processes that this council executes, then some of the comments made by my colleague about the increased efficacy of consultation and a much clearer statement about the legal position [are needed], rather than a very long list of legislation which I struggle to understand and residents are completely lost in.”