Councillors warned of contempt risk ahead of meeting on adoption of local development plan
Wrexham County Borough Council’s monitoring officer has warned councillors they face prison or fines if they defy a court order to approve the local development plan (LDP).
The council last month lost a judicial review brought by a group of developers after it twice rejected the plan despite it having been deemed sound by a planning inspector and recommended by officers.
Councillors' concerns included infrastructure, housebuilding and a proposed Gypsy site.
Developers, led by SG Estates, successfully argued before Mr Justice Eyre that the council should have adopted the local plan within eight weeks of the inspector's recommendations.
Monitoring officer Linda Roberts said in a message to councillors that they were free to vote as they chose but: “By declining to adopt the LDP, there has been a breach of statutory duty to adopt the LDP as found by the court.”
She said her reports earlier this year had warned councillors of legal costs of up to £100,000 if they failed to adopt the plan and “this has happened and we have been ordered to pay £100,000 legal costs to the claimants.
“In addition we have incurred legal costs ourselves together with substantial officer time spent dealing with this case.”
Any further rejection of the plan could see Eyre J find the council in contempt for disobeying a court order.
As individual councillor votes would normally be available in a recorded vote “the court could make an order against those individuals”, Ms Roberts warned.
“If the court finds a defendant in contempt of court, the court may impose a period of imprisonment, a fine, confiscation of assets or other punishment permitted by law.”
The court ordered the council “to reconsider the matter and to reach a decision in accordance with the judgment of the court” and to arrange a meeting to do this by a reasonable time. The relevant meeting is now set for 20 December.
Eyre J said the court was not concerned with the merits of any particular version of the LDP but only with the lawfulness of the decisions.
A council report of the judge’s comments said: “But the court is not concerned with the abstract question of whether the council should be free to adopt or decline to adopt, but the concrete question of whether they have the legal power to do what they did.
“The effect is that the council had no power to decline to adopt. It should have done so within eight weeks of receipt of the examiners’ report.
“The resolutions not to adopt were ultra vires and/or irrational on the basis of a mistaken belief in the existence of a discretion. By declining to adopt there was, moreover, a breach of statutory duty.”
Mark Smulian
