City to appeal ‘green wedge’ ruling because of ramifications for planning policy nationally

Liverpool City Council is to appeal a recent High Court judgment on the development of ‘green wedge’ land because of the “wider ramifications” the ruling has for planning policy nationally.

In January this year Mr Justice Kerr quashed the city council’s grant of planning permissions for a scheme including the building on an area of open land at Calderstones Park of 39 new dwellings and the conversion of a historic house into 12 apartments.

The judge upheld the claimant’s ground of challenge that the local planning authority had not carried out properly its duty under section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, under which it must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Mr Justice Kerr noted in particular that the "strong conservation objections" of the conservation team to the proposal to build three new detached houses within the grounds were not mentioned in the officer’s report.

A balanced report would have summarised the view of the conservation team as a negative internal consultation response counterbalancing the relatively positive ones from highways, environmental health and the drainage engineer, he added.

Mr Justice Kerr found separately there was a clear conflict between the proposals and policy OE3 in the Unitary Development Plan which says the city council will “protect and improve the open character, landscape, recreational and ecological quality of the Green Wedges at Calderstones / Woolton and Otterspool”. The officer’s report had been wrong to conclude otherwise, he said.

However, the judge granted leave for the Court of Appeal to examine his ruling.

When the judgment was issued, Liverpool’s mayor, Joe Anderson, initially said the city council would accept it.

Commenting on the appeal, Liverpool City Council chief executive Tony Reeves said:  “The Mayor has been absolutely clear that the Harthill scheme will not go ahead or be resurrected in any form, and I want to reassure people that, whatever the result of the appeal, that position will not change.

“It is for that reason we are not appealing the costs we were ordered to pay the group that brought the challenge, and have made a payment to them of £30,000 towards them.”

Reeves added: “The reason we are appealing is because the judgment raises much wider issues about established planning policy and the difference between green belt and green wedge.

“As a growing city, we need a solid planning framework which outlines clear definitions for types of land to help us arrive at consistent decisions around development."

Liverpool's chief executive claimed that, as it stands, Mr Justice Kerr’s judgment cast doubt on established principles, and would leave councils up and down the country open to challenge on their assessment of policies which have been in place for many years.

“We are appealing to get clarity on the wider issue, so everyone involved in the planning process, whether it is developers, councils, landowners or local residents, has clarity around how planning applications for development on green wedge should be assessed," he said.