Blackmail attempt set to be reversed (South West Wiltshire Liberal Democrats)

South West Wiltshire Liberal Democrats <info@swwiltshirelibdems.org.uk>

Blackmail attempt set to be reversed

September 13, 2010 8:42 AM

An unlawful decision by Conservatives on the old West Wiltshire Council to refuse to allow a small patch of redundant highway land in Westbury to be taken out of use is to be revoked by Wiltshire Council.

The application for the land to be 'stopped up' was made by Coopers supermarkets when they were in the process of handing over to Morrison's. Westbury Town Council agreed the procedure, but West Wiltshire refused on the grounds that they wanted Coopers to pay some form of compensation in return for the decision.

The land was part of the old Westbourne Road, but now goes nowhere.

The decision to attempt to extort money from Coopers was made by Conservative councillor Michael Mounde, who then held the planning portfolio at West Wilts.

However stopping-up orders are made only on the basis of whether or not the land is required for highway use, and such demands fall outside the legal framework.

This was picked up by Coopers' solicitors, who said, "The land subject to the current application is currently used as a car park and cannot be used to get access to any other highway. ... It would appear ... that your refusal to grant consent is no more than a spurious attempt to gain a quid pro quo arrangement with our client to which the West Wiltshire Council are not rightly entitled."

The solicitors go on to ask for documentary evidence on the decision, and threaten to apply for costs against the council, which could have been substantial had the WWDC decision jeopardised the deal between Coopers and Morrisons.

A report prepared now by council officers says that the highway concerned is not needed for public use and there is no merit in it remaining as highway. In fact WC does not wish to retain the present legal duty to maintain this area. Officers would therefore be willing to proceed with an application if the Cabinet member decides to give consent.

Officers also consider that, irrespective of the motives behind it, the decision to refuse consent to the application was unlawful and unreasonable as it took into account the extraneous consideration of seeking a public benefit.

The cost to taxpayers of supporting Cllr Mounde's decision could be more than £50,000, whereas the legal costs of allowing the procedure would be minimal, and would in any case be borne by the applicant.