Sign up to FREE email alerts from Liverpool Echo - Weekly Politics Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Liverpool City Council has suffered a dramatic defeat in its high-profile battle over Calderstones Park.

The fight surrounds a plan by Redrow Homes to build 51 luxury homes on the Harthill Estate close to the South Liverpool park.

Redrow was handed planning permission for the scheme in February 2017 - but campaigners argued that the land is part of Calderstones Park and should not be built on.

The council and Mayor Joe Anderson has always argued that the land in question - which is home to a riding school, a model railway and an ex-council depot - is not accessible to the public.

Mayor Joe Anderson said the new homes would have brought in more council tax cash - which would have paid for improved facilities for those organisations that use the land.



(Image: Publicity Picture)

The Save Calderstones Park petition amassed more than 50,000 signatures - and campaign group Liverpool Open and Green Spaces - which has been strongly backed by the city's Liberal Democrat councillors - raised enough cash to allow them to take their battle with the council to the High Court for a Judicial Review.

That review was heard in November and the results were announced in London this morning - resulting in a difficult defeat for Mayor Joe Anderson and his council.

The judgement concerned two claims by LOGS, the first regarding the planned relocation of the miniature railway and the second for the building of the 39 homes and conversion of the historic house on the site into 12 apartments.

Announcing the judgement this morning, Mr Justice Kerr said he has quashed both planning permissions - meaning Calderstones Park will not be built on.

Explaining his decision, he said: "I accept that green belt land and green wedge land differ in some respects, as pointed out. But because both are verdant, they share the quality of openness or open character. I reject the proposition that because openness is a term of art in planning law, open character is qualitatively different from openness.

"Land which is open has an open character and also the quality of openness. Undermining the open character of land undermines its openness."

He concluded: "There is no other basis for withholding relief. I will therefore quash the two planning permissions."

More to follow on this breaking story.