Cumbria chief confirms challenge of reorganization amid criticism

[ad_1]

The Cumbria CCs chief has pledged to continue challenging the county’s proposed two-unit reorganization – despite councilors passing a motion yesterday criticizing it as a waste of time and money.

Earlier this month, the council’s chief legal adviser sent a “pre-judicial review protocol” – potentially the first step in a legal challenge – to the Communities Secretary, who in July made the decision to to divide Cumbria and its districts into two new councils. .

But at a special council meeting yesterday, Cumbria councilor Stephen Haraldsen (Con) proposed a motion stating:

He argued 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.

The motion was passed by 30 to 18, and eight councilors abstained, according to the Times & Star newspaper. The board has 84 seats in total.

County chief Stewart Young (Lab) told LGC today that he was not at the meeting because he is on vacation, but that he would certainly have voted against the motion.

He said the meeting was called by Tory MPs knowing full well that a good number of councilors were on vacation, and said Tories formed a majority among those present.

Since the motion was non-binding, it will not result in any action or become board policy, said Cllr Young.

Cumbrias ‘letter to the government set out nine reasons why he believed Robert Jenricks’ decision was illegal.

The council requested a response by August 23. However, the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government has requested additional time due to the absence of staff, and a new deadline of September 6 has been agreed.

Cllr Young said: We will only consider our next step once we have digested their response and obviously taken our own legal advice.

If the board decides to go further, then it will need permission from a High Court judge before a judicial review can take place.

Cllr Young said: There is a long way to go in the process. But the motion tried to anticipate this process even before we had the response to the initial letter.

[ad_2]