'No option' but to defend housing plan for Shrewsbury park says council after court defeat
A council said it felt it had 'no option' to defend its decision to give planning permission to build homes on a Shrewsbury parkland site.
Shropshire Council also says it is too early for it to comment on costs after it sensationally lost a case at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Five law lords in London quashed planning permission the council had granted in 2018 for 15 homes on land at Greenfields Recreation Ground.
The land had been covered by a century old trust that kept the land for community use.
A spokesman for the council said at an earlier stage in court proceedings the Court of Appeal had unanimously decided that the planning decision was lawful.
"In view of the unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal that the planning decision was lawful, the council felt that it had no option but to defend the appeal in the Supreme Court.
"However, the Supreme Court have come to a different view as they are entitled to do."
The council's officers are intending to look at every detail of the court's ruling and what it means for the planning application that was granted for CSE Developments.
"We will study the judgement carefully, in particular what this now means for the planning application which becomes undetermined when the quashing order is made," said the spokesman.
The council spokesman also noted that "following very detailed consideration of the relative legislative provisions" the Supreme Court came to a different view to both the Court of Appeal and High Court.
Taking cases to court can be a costly process but the council said they cannot comment on any costs to the taxpayer yet.
"The terms of the Court Order by the Supreme Court have not been settled yet therefore we cannot comment with regard to costs," said the spokesman.
Shrewsbury Town Council is under pressure to get the land back into public ownership and it is planning to meet with Shropshire Council, the developer and, Greenfields Community to find a way forward.
A council spokesman said: "We have accepted our error in not advertising our intention of selling the portion of recreation space at Greenfields which we had identified as surplus to our needs in 2010.
"Having commissioned the Redfern Report we have already apologised for that mistake and agreed to seek to return the land to public ownership. We have also adopted a much more rigorous policy to ensure that our mistake cannot occur again.
"However, we must now take some time to more fully understand the ruling and its implications. We will also seek to meet with Shropshire Council, the developer and, of course the Greenfields Community, whilst looking at ways of engaging with the wider Shrewsbury community to ascertain their views."
In the Supreme Court's landmark ruling Lady Rose announced that it would act as a warning to councils that they need to take proper stock when they seek to sell public land.
She said that message was "all to the good".
Lady Rose said Shrewsbury Town Council had "not done its research" into a part of the land.
That research, she said had been carried out by Dr Peter Day, a Greenfields resident, who had discovered that the land was covered by a statutory trust.
In selling the site, Shrewsbury Town Council failed to comply with the statutory requirements contained in section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972, that it must be advertised for two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper, and any points raised considered.
And when Shropshire Council gave the developer permission to build homes there it "did not take it into account".
Dr Day said after the ruling: "This saga should never have dragged on for so long and would never have happened if Shrewsbury Town Council had kept proper records of public land and the statutory trust which granted the people of Shrewsbury rights over the land 100 years ago.
“Simply to say that because neither the council nor the developer knew about the statutory trust is not a good enough reason to be able to sell the land from under us and then to allow plans for development to continue. Thankfully the Supreme Court agreed with us on that.
“This clarification of the planning law applying to the sale and development of public land is a warning to local authorities and a victory for community groups across the country.”
