High Court Rejects Campaigners’ Bid to Reopen Green Belt Inquiry

The High Court has dismissed an effort by campaigners to initiate a new inquiry regarding proposals for over 700 new residences. Previously, St Albans City & District Council denied planning permission for two developments, comprising a total of 721 homes in Chiswell Green; however, the secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities subsequently granted approval for these projects. Members of Keep Chiswell Green contended that the secretary of state’s determination was unlawful, asserting that it failed to take into account a green belt assessment conducted by consultants. Nevertheless, the court was informed that neither the campaigners nor any other party had presented this review to the secretary of state. The proposed developments encompass 391 residences from Cala and 330 homes designated for key workers from Headlands Way, both situated on adjoining green belt land. When initially rejecting the application, St Albans Council determined that the “very special circumstances” necessary for construction on the green belt were absent. Conversely, upon granting approval, the national planning inspector stated that the project would yield “very substantial benefits from the scheme”. Keep Chiswell Green initiated legal proceedings against the secretary of state, the developer Cala Homes (Chiltern), Headlands Way Ltd, and the district council, alleging that the secretary of state failed to consider a green belt review prepared by Arup consultants. The Arup review, which had been commissioned by the council, had concluded that neither of the sites ought to be considered for development. However, Mrs Justice Lang was informed that the Arup review was finalized only after the inquiry had concluded, and that a preceding report concerning the green belt had been utilized in its place. Justice Lang noted that the campaigners had the option to request the inspector to consider the Arup review even post-inquiry, but they did not exercise this option when submitting comprehensive documents to the secretary of state in February. She observed that the group’s sole justification for not referencing the Arup review at an earlier point was their claim of being “unaware” that new evidence could be introduced. She stated, “I find this explanation to be inadequate. [Keep Chiswell Green] is an experienced campaigner.” She added, “I have no doubt that they had sufficient skill to ask the inspector and/or the [secretary of state] to consider and seek further representations on the Arup review if they considered it would further their goal of protecting the green belt in Chiswell Green.” Shirani St Ledger McCarthy, spokeswoman for the campaign group, informed the Local Democracy Reporting Service that they had received “repeated warnings” that presenting the Arup review to the planning inspector as new evidence could result in costs being awarded against them. She indicated that the group was “hugely disappointed” by the judge’s decision and is currently evaluating the possibility of an appeal.