More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A legal attempt to stop a controversial development in Hythe has failed.
Judicial review papers were submitted by campaign group Save Princes Parade in September in a last minute attempt to stop the project, which will include 150 homes and a leisure centre being built on green land opposite Hythe seafront.
Folkestone and Hythe District Council (FHDC) applied to itself for the development, also including parkland and retail space, with Princes Parade Road being moved next to the Royal Military Canal.
The 18-page document claimed that the decision to grant planning permission for the development- which could cost around £29 million- is "plainly unlawful".
A fundraiser was set up to support the review application which has reached almost £6,000.
However, it has been announced today that permission to apply for the review- a process under which executive or legislative actions are subject to review- has been refused.
The decision leaves the campaign group seven days in which to ask for the decision to be reconsidered.
If this request is not made or agreed to, it is likely that the development will go ahead.
High Court Judge Mr Justice Lieven also awarded up to £5,000 to the council in costs.
FHDC told KentOnline in February that it hopes building work to start in 2020.
Council leader Cllr David Monk said: “Planning decisions are always considered with the appropriate due diligence. We ensure the correct procedure is followed and respected.
“I am delighted our planning decision has been upheld and we can now get on with continuing to provide services for our residents and build a district that we can all be proud of.”
A spokesperson for Save Princes Parade said: "We have received the judge’s comments, and they are disappointing.
"We are advised by our solicitors that this initial refusal is almost standard practice. The judges comments included an invitation to request a permission hearing.
"What is clear is the judge wishes to hear the arguments in person and we are busy preparing for the hearing with our barrister.
"We had anticipated having to go to a permission hearing but we had hoped it would not be necessary because the arguments are so clearly in our favour.
"As the judge as requested, we will happily make our arguments to him in person. The fight continues."
