Council rejects motion to ditch costly legal appeal over Cherkley Court near Leatherhead

Mole Valley District Council's appeal against a High Court decision over Cherkley Court could cost it a further £100,000 on top of the £130,000 of taxpayers money already at risk.

But nineteen councillors voted against withdrawing the appeal while 14 supported the motion submitted by the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats.

Diggers at work on the estate earlier this year

The appeal comes after a judicial review in which a High Court judge quashed planning permission to turn the estate into a luxury hotel and golf course near Leatherhead.

Leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat Councillor David Preedy, who proposed the motion, said: "This is a double or quits argument from a financial point of view.

"Heads you win, tails you lose, £100,000 either way.

"I don’t think we as a council should be doing that with these sums of public money."

Lib Dem Councillor Dave Howarth said: "At the moment we are the guy in the casino who has just lost some dosh.

"Those on the other side of the chamber want to go back to the roulette table and make some of it back.

"Well, I think we all know the best decision is to go home and stop having such a cavalier attitude to public money."

Independent Councillor Simon Ling, finance portfolio holder on the executive which decided to appeal, said if the case is dropped now then total costs from the judicial review which the council lost were estimated to be approximately £130,000.

Coun Ling said if the council wins the appeal then total costs would be reduced to about £30,000 but if it loses then costs could rise to the region of £220,000.

He said: "Broadly speaking we are facing a decision - one result would save us around about £100,000 and the other spending an additional £100,000. Our decision has to be which of these is more likely."

Coun Ling rejected Coun Preedy's claims that the legal case was "weak" and quoted the Court of Appeal judge who granted permission to appeal saying their grounds had a "real prospect of success".

He said: "It seems to me the best way of saving our money is to continue our action. It is affordable…because of the good management of this council’s finances.

"We should defend the decision of our development control committee as we always do."

Cherkley Campaign had brought the judicial review to block Longshot Cherkley Court's plans to build a golf course on highly protected greenbelt land.

In August judge Mr Justice Haddon-Cave concluded that the council's approval of plans was irrational, legally flawed, contrary to planning policy and based on inadequate reasons. He refused leave to appeal his decision.

Coun Ling said: "We are left in the words of Mr Justice Haddon-Cave of having made a ‘perverse’ decision. I for one would not like that to remain unchallenged."

Independent Councillor John Northcott, planning portfolio holder on the executive, said back in 2012 the planning committee voted against the recommendations of officers to grant permission to develop Cherkley Court.

Coun Northcott said: "I supported the motion to accept the officers’ recommendations and refuse, but unlike many people in this chamber I have accepted the democratic decision of the development control committee.

Countryside campaigners at the estate 

"And I suggest, chairman, there is actually a duty of members...to support decisions democratically taken by this council and its committees."

He said he found it "very sad" that the leader of the opposition had associated his high office with the motion and invited him to withdraw it.

He said: "If we take a vote, whichever way the vote goes, it will mark a watershed in the way this council does it business and it will be very difficult to revert to the consensual way in which we appear to operate."

Conservative Councillor Charles Yarwood, communities and assets portfolio holder on the executive, said: "I cannot support this motion, not for one second."

He said that the case raises the important issue of council members being able to reach different judgements from their officers.

He said: "That’s a vital point that needs clarification through the court system. It’s been left up in the air and it needs clearing up. I’m afraid democracy ain’t cheap."

Lib Dem Councillor Margaret Cooksey said a lot of people had become "very cross" when raising the issue of Cherkley Court with her.

Coun Cooksey said: "It’s because they are so anxious about what the council is doing and seem to be throwing good money after bad.

"And they can’t understand how such an important decision to move forward in that way could possibly have been taken without all members being a party to that discussion and that decision."

Council leader Independent Councillor Chris Townsend made a point of order when Coun Cooksey described the way of doing business as "undemocratic".

Coun Townsend said the leader of the council chosen by members of the council and cabinet was agreed at full council.

He said: "They were democratically elected so the decision was not just legal and constitutional but also democratic."

Coun Cooksey said information on the decision was initially kept from the rest of the council and their questions were not answered at a committee meeting. She said: "Councillors were still kept in the dark."

But Coun Townsend made another point of order and said everything related to the legal appeal had been "clearly and unequivocally" posted on an intranet for councillors.

He said: "We were as transparent as we could be at that particular time linked to some legal aspects. When that decision was made to say that was a mystery is just not correct."

Watch the a video of the meeting on Mole Valley Council's website. 

Tweets by @epsomguardian

TODAY'S HEADLINES IN EPSOM AND EWELL