by Thom Morris

What's in a name?

If you live in the tiny village of Kenardington it's £2,000 of taxpayers' money - in a bitter legal dispute over whether to call a road Church Lane or Church Road.

Parish councillor Geoff Cornes has taken on the might of Ashford council (ABC) single-handedly to solve once and for all the naming issue that has been dividing residents for four years.

With a packed public gallery at Ashford magistrates court - that included a toddler - the villagers watched as Mr Cornes, dressed in a beige jumper and matching trousers, took on council barrister Paul Tapsell dressed in a pin-stripe suit and red tie.

The court heard how Ashford had agreed to keep the single-track road as Church Lane back in February after consulting the 12 homes on the small stretch.

The council had mistakenly renamed the road after a request from parish councillor and Church Lane resident Victoria Cocking in 2006.

But Mr Cornes, backed by 127 villagers, disagreed with the decision to keep it as Church Lane and decided to take his case before magistrates.

He told the court: "ABC were wrong putting those signs up because they didn't consult with the parish council, they consulted with a parish councillor and that's not what they should have done."

But Mr Tapsell, who agreed the initial change in the signs back in 2006 was wrong, argued that the council had consulted fully before agreeing to name the road Church Lane at an executive committee in 2010.

He said: "We're not here to determine what the name of the street was historically, we're here to decide whether the decision in 2010 was made properly.

"It is only appropriate to consider the people that are affected by the change of the name. As we have heard nine of the 12 residents were happy with the decision."

Mr Cornes lost his case and was ordered to pay £500 of the £2,500 it had cost ABC to defend its decision to name the road Church Lane.

Chairman of the bench Mr Cross said: "We consider that the borough council followed the correct procedure.

"We find no reason to challenge the decision and therefore we dismiss this appeal."