Essex to launch judicial review proceedings over reorganisation plans

The Reform-run local authority said it decided to proceed with a judicial review application following receipt of the Government's response to a pre-action protocol letter, which showed that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Steve Reed, dismissed a recommendation from civil servants.

The Government's letter revealed that Reed chose to advance the five-unitary proposal in Essex, despite civil servants recommending a three-unitary proposal.

Officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) told Reed the three-unitary option meets all the Government's criteria for local government reorganisation (LGR) "more strongly than the other three proposals".

"It is the only proposal we assess to be financially viable within five years, which is particularly pertinent given unsupported debt in Thurrock," the advice added.

Essex's leader, Cllr Peter Harris, said the plans were "costly", "ill-judged" and risked widening the gap between residents and their representatives.

He added: "The Government’s pre-action response has only strengthened our resolve. With the unanimous backing of my Cabinet, we are now moving ahead with a judicial review.

“These proposals are opposed to the localism we want for Essex. We will fight them robustly, using every tool at our disposal on behalf of our residents, and we are confident we can win.”

Reed made his decision in March this year, stating that the proposal best met the Government's criteria. He also highlighted the model's focus on the county's five urban centres, and said the proposal would help deliver housing in line with local needs.

Essex supported the three-unitary option, while the five-unitary approach was supported by 10 out of the area's 15 councils.

Essex’s pre-action protocol letter argued the decision was unlawful on the following six grounds: inadequate reasons, procedural unfairness, inadequate consultation, misapplication of the Secretary of State’s own criteria, irrationality, and breach of the public sector equality duty.

Adam Carey