REDDITCH Borough Council spent more than £300,000 on barristers and consultants to get its highly controversial Local Plan 4 fit for approval by the planning inspector.
The eyewatering sum, together with money paid out by Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council, adds up to £457,795.79 which was spent in just six years. The shocking statistics were revealed following a Freedom of Information request by Linda Warby, a member of the Webheath Action Group.
The plan, which will see thousands of homes being built from Webheath to Bentley village in Bromsgrove district, was voted in by members of the council last month.
It has been marked by years of bitter controversy including accusations the borough council had ‘altered the scores’ when it marked areas of the town and neighbouring Bromsgrove district as being suitable for the 3,400 homes which are now heading to the site between Foxlydiate and Bentley village.
Campaigners have been left with a bitter taste after fighting the proposal every inch of the way before planning inspector Michael Hetherington, having initially questioned Bromsgrove and Redditch planners, gave the proposal his seal of approval.
“My view is that it was a stitch up from the very start and they have thrown money at it to get it through,” said WAG chairman David Rose.
“Bromsgrove and Redditch, which share planning departments, have spent nearly half a million pounds on this, a flawed plan and this given the state the council’s budget is in, and the need to save £2.8million.”
Over the years Redditch spent the following on consultants: 2010 – £13,271.78; 2011 – £54,979.88; 2012 – £25,840.44; 2013 – £22,702.19; 2014 – £27,487.04; 2015 – £38,950.00; 2016 – £70,911.07.
And they spent the following on barristers: 2015 – £ 27,795.00; 2016 – £42,510.00.
A council spokesperson said: “This is entirely standard practice, the work cannot be carried out in house because of the specialist nature.
“This is the case for even the largest authorities who rely on outside specialist consultants
“If we hadn’t had this work done the plan would not have been able to progress at all, as we would be in contravention of what the government expects a local planning authority to do in regards to plan making.”
The council also specified that over a seven year period the money had been spent on technical evidence which is required by the national planning policy framework to support the plan, including assessments on flood risk, transport, biodiversity, housing needs, retail needs, employment needs, development viability, as well as administration and legal fees in relation to the Examination in public.
