Romal seeks damages from Peel for breach of contract
The developer claims it has lost out on up to £14.4m in profits because Peel failed to adhere to the terms of an agreement for lease signed by the two parties in relation to residential development plots within the £5bn Liverpool Waters masterplan. Peel denies the claims, describing them as “misconceived”.
Romal Capital, headed up by Greg Malouf, and Peel, are in court today for the beginning of the three-week hearing.
Romal is seeking substantial damages from Peel, which Malouf claims moved the goalposts on a land deal, impacting profits.
It is Romal’s position that Peel’s actions made it “impossible or very substantially more difficult, for Romal to obtain planning permission” for the scale of scheme it had been hoping to deliver at Central Docks, according to court documents.
Peel’s defence states that it gave Romal “no warranties or representations” and that the agreement for lease signed by the two parties “conferred upon Romal an opportunity”. Peel added that Romal itself “failed to abide” by certain “contractual steps”.
As a result, Peel states that Romal’s claim for damages is “misconceived” and that the developer “proceeded at its own risk in applying for permission” without complying with
Peel’s prior requirements.
Scroll to the foot of the article to read the requirements Peel claims Romal failed to adhere to.
Both parties declined to comment when contacted by Place North West.
How we got here
According to court documents, Romal Capital signed two agreements for lease that would, subject to conditions, grant Romal a 200-year lease for land at plot C02 in the Central Docks neighbourhood of Liverpool Waters in 2018 for a combined £2.75m.
The developer claims it signed the leases with the intention of redeveloping the site into five buildings providing 646 apartments. Plans for that scheme were lodged in late 2018.
Two months previously, Peel had submitted amendments to the Liverpool Waters outline planning permission to include a cultural square that Romal claims encroached onto the land it had earmarked for its apartment scheme.
This action, Romal claims, was “to the detriment of Romal and for [Peel’s] financial benefit…[and made] it more difficult for Romal to obtain planning permission for the 646-unit scheme”, according to the documents.
“If the [site] were required to accommodate part of the Cultural Square, there would be insufficient space on it to accommodate the number of residential units anticipated by the Agreement for Lease,” the documents state.
A second application by Peel in 2019 sought to “re-orientate plots C-01, C-02 and C-03 to reflect the revised route of the Jesse Hartley Way”.
This application, as well as the first, and a third seeking sign-off for the Central Docks Neighbourhood plan, made it “impossible, or very substantially more difficult, for Romal to obtain planning permission for the 646-unit scheme”.
As a result, Romal revised its plans, reducing the number of units to 538. This plan was not supported by the council due to “a lack of justification for the infill of the West Waterloo Dock and the impact on the Cultural Square”.
Ultimately, Romal secured planning permission – via appeal – for a 330-apartment project, which is due to complete in May 2027.
Romal is seeking damages from Peel on the basis that the two larger schemes – 646 units and 538 – would have generated far higher profits than the £13.1m generated by the 330-home project.
Romal states the 646-apartment project would have generated up to £27.5m profit and the 538-flat scheme up to £23.6m.
Peel’s defence states that Romal failed to follow certain steps set out in the agreement for lease, namely:
- The delivery of an indicative programme for the period up to commencement of development
- The preparation of initial designs for approval by Peel
- The submission of any variations to the initial design for approval by Peel
- The submission of any proposed planning application for approval by Peel
- The submission of any planning application only in joint names
- The submission of any planning application only if it was in accordance with the Liverpool Waters Outline Planning Permission.
Romal and Peel are also locked in a dispute about the cost of the former obtaining an electricity connection for apartments within the Liverpool Waters masterplan.
Romal claims landowner Peel and subsidiary Leep Electricity Networks, as well as Ancala Essential Growth Infrastructure Fund, have “abused a dominant market position” in relation to charges for grid connections.
Romal has described the £695,325 it was quoted by Leep Electricity Networks as “unreasonable”, saying Scottish Power could do the same work for £11,744.
This story is closed to comments
