A parish council has had to pay out more than £55,000 – a quarter of its annual income – to settle a legal dispute over trespass allegations after its case was undermined by one of its own councillors.

Borough Green Parish Council has been trimming back hedges and trees that overhang the footpath or highway for years, even holding volunteer days and gathering the support of parishioners to help with the work.

But in June 2020, work on the southern edge of the A25 – between Borough Green and Ightham, near the Darkhill roundabout – led to uproar.

The parish council had intended to make room for a new village gateway sign and a 30mph limit sign.

But the landowner took umbrage at the loss of her hedgerow and began legal action, suing the council for trespass.

The council was convinced it had done no wrong, saying that it had the legal right to act as an agent for Kent County Council in such matters, and also had a duty of care to safeguard its parishioners under the Highways Act 1980.

But confidential legal advice it obtained, discussed in a closed session at the council, warned the council could lose the case if it came to court.

The council offered to re-instate the hedge and settle the case for around £5,000, but the parish council’s solicitor said it appeared from the responses he was receiving from the landlord that she was being tipped off about the case.

As a result, they had become more determined to take the matter to court, where legal costs could have rocketed to an estimated £150,000.

The parish council eventually settled out of court for £55,460.

When an inquiry was held within the parish, one councillor, Steve Perry, admitted speaking to the complainant.

He was reported for code of conduct offences to Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council’s (TMBC) monitoring officer, with 11 complaints from the other parish councillors and the clerk that he had breached the code.

It stated “a member shall not seek to improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person” and also that a member “shall not disclose information which is confidential or where disclosure was prohibited by law”.

The standards committee hearing found that “on the balance of probabilities” Cllr Perry had made contact with a third party, without consent from the parish council to do so and that such contact was improper.

It also found Cllr Perry’s motivation had been “at least in part, an intent to disadvantage the parish and borough councillor Mike Taylor”.

Cllr Taylor is the chairman of Borough Green Parish Council and also the village’s TMBC ward councillor.

The standards hearing found the information passed on by Cllr Perry “did not possess the necessary quality of confidence to constitute information which was confidential”. It cleared him of that offence.

The standards committee recommended that Cllr Perry be issued with a formal motion of censure.

At its meeting on December 5, the parish council passed a motion of censure and another of no confidence in Cllr Perry. On Tuesday, he handed in his resignation.

Borough Green Parish Council issued a statement informing residents of the case last week – more than two years after the incident.

It said although it “wanted to release this information to the public much earlier”, the council had been restricted by legal reasons relating to the civil litigation proceedings and the standards hearing.

The parish council assured residents despite the large pay-out its “financial position has remained stable throughout”.

It said that it recognised improvements were needed within the council following the legal dispute.

The statement said: “Our position is one of regret, but the council is determined to move forwards in a positive manner and to continue to represent, serve and work well with our local communities.”

The council has already set its budget for the next financial year and has kept its precept unchanged at £210,000, despite inflation.

Cllr Taylor said the parish council often trimmed back hedges overhanging the footpath and had even tackled this particular hedge several times in the past without complaint but he admitted the council had not contacted the landowner in advance, which had been its mistake.

A resident, who asked to remain anonymous, said: “They started with a bit of light trimming of the hedge but then completely hacked it and removed the complete hedge, leaving a mound of earth and a non-existent hedge that would have allowed horses in the field to stride out onto the busy road.

“Our position is one of regret, but the council is determined to move forwards in a positive manner"

“The hedge waste was disposed of back in the landowner’s field.

“The council’s vice chairman, Tim Shaw, described that as a ‘hiccup’ on the parish website. That’s one massive hiccup.

“It begs the question why the parish council has not made a full public apology for wasting public money and not accepted full responsibility.”

Another resident, Ann Palmer, described the settlement as “eye-watering”.