Judge refuses permission for challenge to district council HQ relocation plans

A High Court judge has this week refused permission for a judicial review of Warwick District Council’s plans to relocate its headquarters.

The scheme, which will see the creation of a new town centre 620-space car park, offices for the district council and private housing, was approved by Warwick’s Planning Committee in January 2018.

A separate outline planning application for up to 170 new homes on the current site of the council’s head office on Milverton Hill – the sale of which would fund the new HQ – was approved at the same time.

Campaign group Save Leamington from Warwick DC had raised funds via Crowd Justice to challenge the local authority’s decision-making.

Mr Justice Garnham concluded, however, that the claim was “not properly arguable” and that the district council did have regard to its planning policy.

He added: “That policy set out an expectation that that developers make a contribution. That gave the council a discretion; it did not impose an obligation. The council is entitled to exercise a judgement that the viability of the development is such that a contribution should not be required."

The judge also ordered that the council's costs of £3,000 be paid by the claimant.

Cllr Andrew Mobbs, Leader of Warwick District Council, said: “I am delighted that we can now continue to move ahead with our ambitious plans for our HQ relocation. I appreciate that there has been significant debate and discussion about this project and I am pleased we were able to address any concerns raised during our two-day public consultation in early June….

“We will continue to work with BID and the Chamber of Trade to mitigate the closure of Covent Garden car park, and my Executive team will be considering a report that ensures our robust displacement strategy is in place before the closure.”

In a statement on Crowd Justice, Save Leamington from Warwick DC said: “Those of us most closely involved in this case are deeply disappointed by this decision and the award of costs against us. In essence, the weakness of the financial viability for the development has led to vital services not receiving the funding that they would normally be expected to receive and which they all requested.

“This was not unlawful, as we sought to argue, but it continues to expose the very flawed basis for this development and the related one at Covent Garden. We are very grateful to our supporters. We will continue to find ways of campaigning against these developments.”