Cumbria County Council is to press ahead with its legal challenge against the government regarding its plans for local government reform despite a vote by councillors which said that such a move would be a “waste of time and money”.
The authority’s cabinet met last night to discuss the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary Robert Jenrick’s response to a pre-action protocol letter sent on August 9.
A pre-action protocol letter sets out the position of the claimant, which in this case is Cumbria County Council, prior to any court proceedings.
Govt response to pre-action letter.pdf (cumbria.gov.uk)
Last night the council’s cabinet voted in favour of continuing the legal challenge against the Government’s decision.
How did we get here?
Mr Jenrick announced his decision on July 21, subject to Parliamentary approval, to back two unitary authorities in Cumbria on an east/west split.
He received four proposals from councils in Cumbria and decided on the joint bid submitted by Allerdale and Copeland Borough Councils.
The four proposals were as follows:
- The two councils – Allerdale and Copeland – jointly submitted a proposal for two unitary councils: West Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City and Copeland Borough Councils and East Cumbria comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, Eden District and South Lakeland District Councils.
- The two councils – Barrow and South Lakeland – jointly submitted a proposal for two unitary councils: ‘The Bay’ comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, South Lakeland District and Lancaster City Councils and North Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City, Copeland Borough and Eden District Councils.
- The two councils – Carlisle and Eden – jointly submitted a proposal for two unitary councils: North Cumbria comprising the area covered by Allerdale Borough, Carlisle City and Eden District Councils and South Cumbria comprising the area covered by Barrow Borough, Copeland Borough and South Lakeland District Councils.
- Cumbria County Council submitted a proposal for a single unitary council for the area of Cumbria County.
On August 9 Cumbria County Council issued the pre-action protocol letter calling for a judicial review of the decision to back the chosen proposal over its idea of a single unitary authority covering the whole of the county.
The letter requested that the Secretary of State responded by August 23, but an extension was granted on request of the Government, with the response received on September 6.
Why did councillors vote to halt the legal challenge?
A special meeting of Cumbria County Council was called at short notice on August 25 to discuss the legal review.
Councillors resolved that launching a legal challenge against the plans for local government reform in Cumbria would be “a waste of public money and time and that the council should instead focus on serving local residents by working constructively with all partners to ensure a smooth transition to the new unitary authorities.”
However, as the decision to proceed with the judicial review is an executive decision, the vote was not binding.
Why is Cumbria County Council calling for a judicial review?
Cumbria County Council says the purpose of the judicial is “not to examine the decision itself” but to challenge the “process by which the decision was reached”.
It says there are four main grounds for bringing a claim for judicial review, which were illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and legitimate expectation.
Cumbria County Council say the decision on the chosen model of local government reform:
A. Left out of account necessarily material considerations which the Secretary of State’s (SoS) guidance requires to be taken into account;
b. Failed to conscientiously consider the consultation responses of Cumbria County Council (CCC) showing why the chosen Two Unitary Approach did not meet the SoS’s own guidance and would not deliver that which his guidance required;
c. Failed to understand or apply his own guidance in terms of the required scale of the new unitary authorities and provided no reason to depart from that guidance;
d. Failed to recognise that the Two Unitary Approach is predicated around the creation of a mayoral combined authority to ensure coordination on key matters thus adding
a new tier of local government administration, undermining the savings claimed and the need for which was a key reason why a Single Unitary Approach was appropriate here;
e. For no valid reason acted inconsistently with his approach in North Yorkshire where a Single Unitary Approach was adopted – in the case of North Yorkshire factors in
favour of a Single Unitary Approach were relied on but the same factors equally applicable to Cumbria were ignored in the Cumbria decision;
f. Appears could have been motivated by the possible party political advantage that splitting Cumbria in two may secure for his party. If this was a factor in the decision, it would be an abuse of power and unlawful;
g. acted irrationally; and
h. failed to provide adequate reasons addressing the principal controversial issues.
To read more on Cumbria County Council’s concerns, click here.
Cumbria’s biggest services ‘likely to continue operating county-wide’ despite reorganisation
