More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
Questions have been raised about the appointment of a lawyer paid by Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) to defend its case at a public planning inquiry.
Last month, an inquiry was held into the MBC's decision to reject an application for 421 homes on land west of Church Road, in Otham, next to St Nicholas Church, which was appealed by developer Bellway.
However, it was claimed during a full council on Wednesday, December 6 that the lawyer who defended MBC's position had earlier provided advice in support of severe cost warnings being issued by the head of planning, if the application was to be refused by councillors and go to planning appeal.
The decision to refuse the Bellway scheme went against the advice of planning officers, who warned that a lost appeal could cost the authority up to £165,000.
In fact, the application, which councillors objected to over highways safety concerns, was turned down three times. The first time was in May by the planning committee, but the decision was deferred, as it was pointed out a rejection could be overturned by an inspector at the developer's appeal, resulting in the council potentially paying out.
It came back to the committee again in June but was once more turned down.
Finally, it was put to the policy and resources committee for determination, "given the significant risks of costs", associated with the rejection, as described in an officer report.
During a question and answer session for members of the public, Chris Wood, secretary of the Chapman Avenue Residents Association, which objected to the plans, said: "I would like an explanation for my benefit and other members of the community about facts that were revealed by council for Bellway at the appeal enquiry for land west of Church Road.
"The lawyer appointed by the council to argue the case at the appeal against refusal of the permission had previously been paid to provide independent legal advice in support of severe cost warnings by the head of planning against councillors' refusal decision.
"Who is responsible for approving the appointment and could they explain the rational for the appointment, bearing in mind council refused to grant permission on three occasions despite advice from that same lawyer who was then employed to represent the case."
Responding, Cllr David Burton said the decision about counsel appointments at planning enquiries is made between MBC's planning and legal services department, who are delegated authority by the full council.
He went on: "I am advised that on this occasion counsel was appointed based on her knowledge of applications and the council's planning policies. This knowledge is essential to make the most effective defence of the reasons for refusal.
"The legal representative professional code requires the representative to act in the best interest of the council and to defend the council's position regardless of the history of the applications."
Mr Wood asked if there would be an enquiry into how this application and appeal was run, adding: "I would have thought a different legal team from those providing initial legal advice would have bought fresh eyes to the case for appeal."
Cllr Burton said he didn't know if there would be an enquiry, but said a councillor could request a report.
