Redrow Calderstones Park
Redrow's planning application for the site, submitted in 2016

Calderstones ruling to be appealed

Charlie Schouten

While plans to build homes on the site are still not going ahead, Liverpool City Council has confirmed it will appeal a High Court judgement rejecting the scheme, due to the ruling’s “far-reaching consequences” for development on green wedge land.

The application for 51 homes, which included 39 new-builds and 12 apartments within an existing historic house on the Harthill Estate, had been backed by Mayor of Liverpool Joe Anderson and the council, but had also seen a four-year battle with campaigners.

Objections to the scheme from the Liverpool Open and Green Spaces Community Interest Group, or LOGSCIC, and the Save Calderstones Park group had centred on the loss of green space within the park, although the council had argued the Harthill Estate was not part of Calderstones Park as it was not accessible by the public.

As well as a 50,000-signature petition, the objections culminated in a judicial review, which ruled in favour of LOGSCIC on 18 January.

In his judgment made last month, Justice Kerr upheld the appeal brought by LOGSCIC on the grounds that Liverpool Council had misinterpreted part of its own policy, which relates to the protection of a green wedge at Calderstones Park. This resulted in the existing planning permission being quashed.

Following this, Anderson confirmed plans by the council and housebuilder Redrow were “dead” and would “not be resurrected in any form”.

However, in launching its appeal, which has been allowed by the judge, the council said the ruling would have “far-reaching consequences for Local Authorities in how they deal with land classed as green wedge”. Justice Kerr’s ruling accepted that green belt land and green wedge land differ in some respects.

The city council’s 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.

“The reason we are appealing is because the judgement 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.

“As it stands, Mr Justice Kerr’s judgement casts doubt on established principles, and leaves 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.

Your Comments

Read our comments policy here

Awful news! Is Joe using my council tax to pay for this appeal – surely not?

By Lizzy Baggot

I signed the petition to save Calderstones but seen as they’ve teamed up with the Bixteth Gardens mob I’m not bothered now. They are two separate issues and only one has validity but I’m not into the rent a mob attitude that seems to have taken hold.

By Anonymous

Is it a borough council’s responsibility to get clarity for a nation? The clarity seems clear enough to me, even if they don’t like it.

More money spent, but hey – it’s not their own money they’re spending, is it?

As for their assurances that the project is dead and they’re appealing out of some kind of principle, that’s meaningless.

By Mike

Yes Mike – why spend council tax payers money to help out the rest of the country as they seem to be trying to say. Very noble…………when they are so strapped for cash that Joe has to sell the family silver without a proper plan. That he invents ways of charging that other councils don’t appear to have (the landlord’s licence fee being one of them) I would not believe this!
Sad that the Calderstones group have had to join the Bixteth Gardens group – I suppose from their perspective they are trying to draw on any expertise they may not have – as from my understanding it was just normal people giving their time and expertise – so I get why they have done it. But appreciate it will detract.

By Lizzy Baggot

Subscribe to our newsletter