Corby MP criticises 'fee chasing' over warehouse error
An MP has told the House of Commons a council is demanding £5,000 in legal fees from residents following a case arising from its own planning error.North Northamptonshire Council failed to consult people living close to the proposed site of a Corby warehouse in 2021, which was then built metres away from gardens.The town's MP, Lee Barron, told MPs that a consultation was carried out in the wrong street and the residents who took the council to court were being pursued for the costs, after their case was dismissed.The Leader of the House called the case "troubling". The council's leader said it was the judge who decided the party who brought the case should pay the fees.
The first time residents realised a giant warehouse was being built next to their homes on Hooke Close was when a 60ft (18.3m) metal frame appeared at the site.They complained to the council and it transpired that the people of Hubble Close, about half-a-mile (750m) from the site, had been sent notices about the development instead of those on Hooke Close. Planning notices had also been placed on the wrong lampposts.An internal review found that the consultation errors meant the decision to grant planning permission did not comply with the law.
One resident, Georgie Wallis, applied for a judicial review of the decision on behalf of herself and neighbours.In December 2024, Mrs Justice Beverley Lang dismissed the application, saying Ms Wallis had not issued it quickly enough.The judge did say, however, that the council's handling of the planning application had "fallen well below the standard to be expected".
Speaking during questions to the Leader of the House, Lucy Powell, on Thursday, Barron (Labour) said: "Now, the council who didn't consult the residents, who consulted the wrong street, who the judge criticised, is pursuing £5,000 in legal costs from the very people it failed."He asked Powell (Labour) whether she agreed that "authorities should be held accountable when serious consultation failures occur and that residents should not be financially penalised as a result of the incompetence of the consultation".She described the Hooke Close case as "troubling" and said she would raise it with ministers.
Ms Wallis told the BBC: "The council have already made a public statement apologising for their errors."I think they should just do the honourable thing, wipe the fees and take accountability."Jamie Hume, who also lives near the warehouse, said residents had agreed that they would share the liability for costs, even though only one of them applied for judicial review.He added that having to pay legal fees was "not fair for trying to hold a public body to account who've admitted wrongdoing".
The leader of the Conservative council, Jason Smithers, said: "The court has adjudicated the resident liable for the sum of £5,000. "In the event that the resident experiences difficulty in discharging this obligation, it shall be her responsibility to petition the court for reconsideration, as this constitutes a judicial pronouncement and not an imposition by the council."Moreover, it is not appropriate for elected members to seek to intervene in a judicial determination."A spokesperson for North Northamptonshire Council said: "Due to the ongoing legal conversations around costs, it's not possible to comment any further at this stage."
Follow Northamptonshire news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
33 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘wreckage'
Labour MPs have rebelled against the Government over its plans to override nature protections, amid fears its housebuilding reforms amount to a 'wreckage'. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said developers will be able to pay into a new nature recovery fund to bolster conservation efforts, which he denied was a 'cash to trash model'. But North East Hertfordshire MP Chris Hinchliff forced a division on his amendment 69, which would compel developers to improve the conservation status of environmental features on their land before causing 'damage'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, with 180 in favour, 307 against, majority 127. Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) and Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) were among the 14 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government. In addition to Mr Hinchliff, Labour's Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), and Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) also voted in favour of the amendment. Mr Hinchliff told the Commons that the fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The money will help Natural England set up new environmental delivery plans (EDPs), which Mr Hinchliff said should come with a timeline for their implementation. He said the proposal will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.' Mr Hinchliff had also called for a residents' right of appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and new town hall powers to block developers' plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. Mr Pennycook had earlier said the 'status quo' for the environment and development was not working, and instead proposed reforms which he described as a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which is set to get powers to acquire land compulsorily to put its EDPs into practice. Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan, who acted as a teller for the ayes to enable the vote to take place, criticised the Government's rhetoric, and argued it was 'too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers'. He said 'there's no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires which is going to fix' what he described as a 'developer-led model' of planning, when housebuilders 'drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people'. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing'. Conservative shadow housing minister Paul Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Several MPs had called for swift bricks – hollow bricks where small birds can make their nests – in new builds, in amendments drafted by Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West), and Liberal Democrat housing spokesman Gideon Amos. At the despatch box, Mr Pennycook said that 'changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new builds', through a regularly updated set of planning rules. 'We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude their use, or which would make them ineffective,' the minister said. 'This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, meaning for example that we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.'
South Wales Argus
34 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Concerns raised over £72m shortfall's effect on council
Peter Fox has written to Monmouthshire Council's leader regarding the impact of the shortfall in employer National Insurance (NI) funding. The shortfall comes following the UK Government decision to increase NI contributions without providing full funding to local authorities, leaving public sector bodies to pay more to employ staff. Mark Drakeford, Labour's finance secretary, assured in November that additional funding would cover these increased costs. This week, he revealed the UK government would not provide full funding, leaving a £72 million shortfall across Welsh public services. Mr Fox said: "Mark Drakeford assured us that these tax increases would not fall on the public sector, so last week's news was bitterly disappointing. "Local authorities will now face a difficult choice: either cut vital services or raise council tax to cover the extra costs."
Western Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
UK has one of ‘worst statutory leave offers for fathers in developed world'
In a new report, the House of Commons committee said a maximum of two weeks' paternity leave is 'completely out of step with how most couples want to share their parenting responsibilities' and 'entrenches outdated gender stereotypes about caring'. The committee has urged the Government to either amend the Employment Rights Bill to legislate for a day one right to paid leave or commit to 'considering this vital change within its review' in consultation with employers. It has also called on the Government to consider raising paternity pay to the level of maternity pay in the first six weeks – 90% of average earnings. The paternity and shared parental leave report by the committee said working parents 'will be let down by a review that leads only to tinkering around the edges of the system'. Chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee Sarah Owen said the UK's parental leave system was in 'urgent need of an overhaul to fit with the reality of working parents' lives'. The Labour MP for Luton North said reform 'must start with longer and better paid paternity leave'. Ms Owen said: 'It's essential the Government's proposed review addresses the system's fundamental failings, including low statutory pay, inadequate leave periods for fathers and others, exclusion of many working parents and guardians, plus design flaws and unnecessary complexity in the Shared Parental Leave scheme. 'The UK's parental leave system has fallen far behind most comparable countries, and we now have one of the worst statutory leave offers for fathers and other parents in the developed world.' The Labour MP added: 'Ministers must commit to meaningful reforms in the medium-term, with a view to going further towards a more gender equal parental leave system. 'Tinkering around the edges of a broken system will let down working parents. While much-needed substantial change to our paid parental leave system will require considerable financial investment, this would be outweighed by wider societal and economic benefits.' Chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee Sarah Owen (Roger Harris/UK Parliament) The report states that the UK's rate of statutory parental pay is 'completely out of kilter with the cost of living, has not kept pace with inflation and is far below rates in most comparable countries'. It recommends phased introduction of increases to statutory pay across the system to bring rates for all working parents up to 80% or more of average earnings or the real Living Wage. The lack of provision for self-employed fathers is 'deeply unfair', the report adds. The committee recommends that the Government consider options for providing statutory paid leave for all self-employed working fathers as part of its review of the parental leave system, including introducing a paternity allowance for self-employed fathers and other parents, similar to maternity allowance. The report states that the shared parental leave system is 'extremely difficult for most parents and their employers to understand'. It said a forthcoming review must examine the function and necessity of eligibility rules, with a view to 'simplifying or removing the employment status, time in service and earnings criteria'. The committee said the review should examine approaches taken in overseas systems, including the German 'partnership bonus' and Portugal's 'sharing bonus', which provide additional paid leave to couples in which both parents take a substantial portion of leave while the other returns to paid work.
