GO AD-FREE. Get 2 Months Digital Subscription for ONLY £1! Use code 2FOR1
GET STARTEDMore on KentOnline
GO AD-FREE. Get 2 Months Digital Subscription for ONLY £1! Use code 2FOR1
GET STARTEDMore on KentOnline
Swale Borough Council is accused of wasting taxpayers’ cash following a further defeat in the courts.
The ruling is just the latest chapter in a saga over plans for hundreds of houses at Barton Hill Drive in Minster, Sheppey.
Earlier this year the local authority was ordered to pay £6,253 in costs, in addition to a previous award of £171,000, after losing its challenge against the development and subsequent appeal over having to pay legal fees.
Opposition Conservatives say the total bill for contesting the application now looks to exceed £471,000.
The council’s latest appeal - against the order to pay costs incurred by both the developer, SW Attwood and Partners, and the Secretary of State for Housing - was rejected at the High Court.
It came as planning permission for a scheme of up to 700 homes was granted on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate.
Developers Stephen and James Attwood last month revealed an expanded scheme of 1,500 houses in a carbon neutral development on the site. Stephen responded to the latest ruling by criticising the council’s use of public cash.
“With the pressures of Covid-19 on all businesses and lives across Swale, is this really appropriate use of taxpayers’ money?” he asked.
His concerns have been echoed by Cllr James Hunt, Tory spokesman for planning on the council, who said: “We are in a time where local government has major financial strains due to the coronavirus pandemic.
“Many residents of Swale have uncertainty of what their future holds, yet the administration of Swale council appear to not think about wasting public money in fighting losing battles.
“As councillors we must listen to public opinion and represent the views of the electorate, but there comes a time when we must be open and honest with them rather than throwing their money away.”
A council spokesman said the authority was “disappointed” with the outcome.
“We are currently reviewing the judgement to consider whether there would be any scope for a further challenge,” they said.
