Shrewsbury Greenfields park row: How a fake 'fact' was used to justify a wrong decision
An assumption made many years ago that became established as a fake 'fact' caused a chain of events which led to the highest judges in the land deciding in favour of residents in a parkland battle with councils.
Crucially officials at Shrewsbury Town Council and its predecessor organisations came to believe that a piece of the Greenfields Recreation Ground was not actually a part of it and that it was not protected by a trust that guaranteed its use for the public good.
The Supreme Court decided in the residents' favour in a landmark ruling on Wednesday.
The council sold off a part of the land to developers and planning permission was granted for it to be built on.
But residents, led by Dr Peter Day, did what council officials should have done in about 2010 when the land was originally earmarked for development. They had a look at dusty old files and records to piece together the truth.
Even when presented with the true facts, the powers that be dug their heels in against the residents and did not believe what was stated in black and white. Shrewsbury Town Council has apologised for the state of affairs and now faces calls to buy back the land that it originally sold for £550,000.
The developer, saying it was an innocent party, has been left with land that it cannot build on and planning permission that has been quashed.
A brief timeline of the events that lead to the mess:
February 11, 1929: Shrewsbury Council minutes confirm that they saw Greenfields Recreation Ground as one single recreation ground. The site was bought in two lots in 1926.
July 27, 1931: The town's council allowed a footpath from Falstaff Street to the allotments, which is still there. It became seen as a boundary between the two pieces of land, which was "erroneous speculation" according to a barrister who examined the issue on behalf of the town council.
In 1942 the Government sanctioned a Dig For Victory campaign, which led to the land being used as allotments.
In 1953 there was no evidence that the council ever resolved to continue the land as allotments and therefore by default it went back into public use.
Michael Redfern QC concluded in his 2022 report to Shrewsbury Town Council that the council and the developer CSE were "seduced by anecdotal evidence into thinking that the site was never part of Greenfields Recreation Ground and that has been their confounding error".
The site became a tree nursery divided by a hedge and when the nursery closed it became a wilderness.
Mr Redfern ruled that Shrewsbury Town Council "held determinedly to the 60 or more years of anecdotal evidence" which led them to make a "complete rejection of facts submitted by Greenfields Community Group."
On October 4, 2017 Shrewsbury Town Council sold the land to CSE Developments. But because of the trust, that they erroneously believed did not exist, they did not comply with a law that says they must advertise it two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper and the subsequent consideration of any objections.
Following the sale, Shropshire Council granted conditional planning permission to CSE to build 15 dwelling houses on the site.
The subsequent legal battle which started five years ago was between the residents and Shropshire Council. The council argued that the development could go ahead despite the trust that protected it.
In a landmark decision at the Supreme Court today five of the country's most senior judges have decided that simply selling a site held in trust did not stop that protection.
Lady Rose, who delivered the landmark ruling, said the decision would remind local authorities, be they parish, town or county councils, that they have to "take stock of how they acquired parks and open spaces". She said the reminder "would be all to the good".
