Save Allerton Priory Land
Donation protected
In February 2018, a catastrophic error of judgement at the Public Inquiry resulted in Inspector Olivia Spencer upholding Redrow’s appeal (against Liverpool City Council’s unanimous cross-party refusal) to allow a scheme to build 160 executive houses on land adjacent to Allerton Priory (a Grade II* listed building) in Liverpool, L25.
It is essential we raise funds to help continue the campaign against this scheme for the following reasons:
1. It is a key part of Liverpool’s Calderstones to Woolton Green Wedge.
2. It falls within the curtilage of an irreplaceable historic Heritage asset (Grade II* Listed Building of National significance).
3. It is an important ecological asset rich in biodiversity and wildlife and a potential city wildlife site.
These highly important aspects of Liverpool are about to be sacrificed for nothing more than profits for a private executive housing company on a green field site in an urban environment of Liverpool.
Any funding we receive will go towards a legal fund for a) applying for an injunction until an investigation is carried out b) seeking a retrospective Judicial Review in light of all of the irregularities that have come to light c) protect further areas of the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge from being “developed” e.g. Woolton Manor, Allerton Towers, Dowsefield, etc.
Essential to the Allerton Priory case is the recent Calderstones Park Judicial Review (against Liverpool City Council & Redrow) which was fought on the following two grounds:
a. That the Council’s planning policy for Green Wedge (OE3 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan) has been misinterpreted and/or misapplied. This development would be inappropriate and would harm the openness of the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge.
b. The application site is part of Calderstones Park and that the (Planning) Officer’s Report misled the Planning Committee.
Justice Kerr, at the High Court, found in favour of the Calderstone’s/LOGS Campaign and upheld their JR on both grounds. In relation to the Green Wedge, the Judge stated that ‘Planning Policy is a matter if law’ and that “Planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty and cannot make policies mean what they want them to mean” (P18 of Judgement) i.e. LCC cannot play fast and loose with the contents of the Local Plan – interpreting them in any way they choose. Notice also, that the Planning Officer (under whose direction?) was found to have been deliberately misleading the Planning Committee and, by extension, the people of Liverpool. ALLERTON PRIORY LAND FALLS WITHIN THE SAME GREEN WEDGE AND, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LAND IS PRIVATE OR NOT, THE SAME LAW SHOULD HOLD TRUE.
It is no surprise that Liverpool City Council have immediately appealed Justice Kerr’s decision on the Green Wedge policy because they (and their Executive Housing PARTNER Redrow) wish to continue building upon Liverpool’s Green Spaces. The fact that LCC (and Redrow) have appealed the Green Wedge decision gives all those who support the Allerton Priory Campaign cause for grave concern; after all, the Council spent over £100,000 “supposedly” fighting Redrow’s scheme to build on AP land – and one of the main grounds of its defense was to uphold the Green Wedge designation (OE3). The Council has now exposed itself in a huge duplicity.
It appears that anyone in Liverpool, who expressed an opinion, was against the AP scheme. Logic would dictate that they are still of the same opinion and still all want to stop this development. The following issues I am about to outline would therefore suggest that the City of Liverpool and its Council (and indeed the Planning Inspectorate), with a view to truth and justice, would therefore wish to investigate and quash the Appeal decision based on the numerous irregularities and unorthodox events that have recently come to light. We understand that you are extremely busy and, for brevity, I have summarised these issues in bullet points (but each one can be vastly expanded upon if required and evidence can be produced) :
1. In all of the official planning documentation prior to both the original Planning Application and then the subsequent Public Inquiry, the Council had been declaring that it had the requisite 5 Year Housing Supply yet incredibly failed to substantiate this fact at the Public Inquiry.
2. The Inspector gave LCC & Redrow an additional day to meet and come to an agreement on the 5 Year Housing Supply figures outside of the scrutiny of both the Public Inquiry and the public itself. An important point here is that LCC and Redrow are official “PARTNERS” for Executive Housing. So two partners, who presumably had a joint goal, have been allowed to collude on the figures presented to the Inspector without an independent party witnessing and validating the facts.
3. According to a Statement by Mirna Juarez (Liberal Democrat Councilor for Allerton& Hunts Cross Ward) at the Allerton Priory Reserved Matters meeting on 30 October 2018 there would appear to be a discrepancy between the housing supply figures presented to the Secretary of State for the new Local Plan and those provided at the Allerton Priory Public Inquiry weeks earlier.
4. There would appear to be a conflict of interest between the legal teams the Council chose to represent the Allerton Priory and Calderstones cases.
5. Why did the Council and its legal team not seek a Judicial Review following the Inspector’s decision to find in Redrow’s favour at the Public Inquiry? A Judge decided that the Calderstones team had a sufficiently strong case on the grounds of the Green Wedge designation – so why did LCC not investigate this legal avenue; We are led to understand that to take a Judge’s advice on this matter is free of charge.
6. A letter has been sent to the Chief Constable of Merseyside asking for a full investigation into the disclosure by a Senior Labour Councilor that Liverpool City Council were content to refuse Redrow’s application to build on Allerton Priory because they knew they would “throw it” at the Public Inquiry (which would and did inevitably ensue). There are witnesses to this disclosure.
The fact that a very Senior Labour Councilor made this statement is extremely important. Liverpool City Council spent over £100,000 defending its decision to “refuse” permission for the Allerton Priory scheme. The scheme itself could possibly be worth something in the region of £50-100 million to certain parties. If what the Councilor disclosed is true, then it would appear that fraud or malfeasance has likely taken place within public office by one or more public officials in relation to this planning application. Indeed, it would seem that one or more of the following 3 Sections of the Fraud Act 2006 would apply to one or more councilors or officials.
7. It seems to the Allerton Priory campaign that Redrow misled the Inquiry by stating up to 160 houses would be built when they must have known all along they could only build 100. Was this a deliberate inflation of figures to convince the Inspector that they would be assisting LCC to meet its 5 Year Housing Supply?
8. In May 1989 the Secretary of State’s decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL of the Regional Health Authority against the Council’s refusal of permission for residential development on the grounds of Woolton Manor (in the same Green Wedge as Allerton Priory), stating it ‘is a clear vindication of the Council’s Green Wedge policy in this part of the city’. This is also private land, just as Allerton Priory is privately owned land and is of ‘strategic significance in the southern part of the city which is considered worthy of protection.’ We believe that the Inspector has therefore failed to take into account previous decisions made by the Secretary of State on the Woolton-Calderstones Green Wedge.
9. The Mapping firm Esri UK analysed Landsat 8 satellite images from spring 2016 for the 10 cities with the largest populations. Liverpool was ranked rock bottom with 16% green space. We feel that Government and Local Authority representatives should acknowledge this disparity and seek to ameliorate this rather than allow it to be exacerbated by this terrible error of judgement on behalf of the Inspector.
10. There was no Public Consultation in any meaningful sense of the term. This is a legal planning requirement. Consultation was specifically restricted to LCC Councilors only. A late request was made by Maria Eagle MP to meet with Redrow on Allerton Priory land, but they insisted that they would only meet with one representative from SAP which we believed to be totally undemocratic.
It is essential we raise funds to help continue the campaign against this scheme for the following reasons:
1. It is a key part of Liverpool’s Calderstones to Woolton Green Wedge.
2. It falls within the curtilage of an irreplaceable historic Heritage asset (Grade II* Listed Building of National significance).
3. It is an important ecological asset rich in biodiversity and wildlife and a potential city wildlife site.
These highly important aspects of Liverpool are about to be sacrificed for nothing more than profits for a private executive housing company on a green field site in an urban environment of Liverpool.
Any funding we receive will go towards a legal fund for a) applying for an injunction until an investigation is carried out b) seeking a retrospective Judicial Review in light of all of the irregularities that have come to light c) protect further areas of the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge from being “developed” e.g. Woolton Manor, Allerton Towers, Dowsefield, etc.
Essential to the Allerton Priory case is the recent Calderstones Park Judicial Review (against Liverpool City Council & Redrow) which was fought on the following two grounds:
a. That the Council’s planning policy for Green Wedge (OE3 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan) has been misinterpreted and/or misapplied. This development would be inappropriate and would harm the openness of the Calderstones/Woolton Green Wedge.
b. The application site is part of Calderstones Park and that the (Planning) Officer’s Report misled the Planning Committee.
Justice Kerr, at the High Court, found in favour of the Calderstone’s/LOGS Campaign and upheld their JR on both grounds. In relation to the Green Wedge, the Judge stated that ‘Planning Policy is a matter if law’ and that “Planning authorities do not live in the world of Humpty Dumpty and cannot make policies mean what they want them to mean” (P18 of Judgement) i.e. LCC cannot play fast and loose with the contents of the Local Plan – interpreting them in any way they choose. Notice also, that the Planning Officer (under whose direction?) was found to have been deliberately misleading the Planning Committee and, by extension, the people of Liverpool. ALLERTON PRIORY LAND FALLS WITHIN THE SAME GREEN WEDGE AND, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LAND IS PRIVATE OR NOT, THE SAME LAW SHOULD HOLD TRUE.
It is no surprise that Liverpool City Council have immediately appealed Justice Kerr’s decision on the Green Wedge policy because they (and their Executive Housing PARTNER Redrow) wish to continue building upon Liverpool’s Green Spaces. The fact that LCC (and Redrow) have appealed the Green Wedge decision gives all those who support the Allerton Priory Campaign cause for grave concern; after all, the Council spent over £100,000 “supposedly” fighting Redrow’s scheme to build on AP land – and one of the main grounds of its defense was to uphold the Green Wedge designation (OE3). The Council has now exposed itself in a huge duplicity.
It appears that anyone in Liverpool, who expressed an opinion, was against the AP scheme. Logic would dictate that they are still of the same opinion and still all want to stop this development. The following issues I am about to outline would therefore suggest that the City of Liverpool and its Council (and indeed the Planning Inspectorate), with a view to truth and justice, would therefore wish to investigate and quash the Appeal decision based on the numerous irregularities and unorthodox events that have recently come to light. We understand that you are extremely busy and, for brevity, I have summarised these issues in bullet points (but each one can be vastly expanded upon if required and evidence can be produced) :
1. In all of the official planning documentation prior to both the original Planning Application and then the subsequent Public Inquiry, the Council had been declaring that it had the requisite 5 Year Housing Supply yet incredibly failed to substantiate this fact at the Public Inquiry.
2. The Inspector gave LCC & Redrow an additional day to meet and come to an agreement on the 5 Year Housing Supply figures outside of the scrutiny of both the Public Inquiry and the public itself. An important point here is that LCC and Redrow are official “PARTNERS” for Executive Housing. So two partners, who presumably had a joint goal, have been allowed to collude on the figures presented to the Inspector without an independent party witnessing and validating the facts.
3. According to a Statement by Mirna Juarez (Liberal Democrat Councilor for Allerton& Hunts Cross Ward) at the Allerton Priory Reserved Matters meeting on 30 October 2018 there would appear to be a discrepancy between the housing supply figures presented to the Secretary of State for the new Local Plan and those provided at the Allerton Priory Public Inquiry weeks earlier.
4. There would appear to be a conflict of interest between the legal teams the Council chose to represent the Allerton Priory and Calderstones cases.
5. Why did the Council and its legal team not seek a Judicial Review following the Inspector’s decision to find in Redrow’s favour at the Public Inquiry? A Judge decided that the Calderstones team had a sufficiently strong case on the grounds of the Green Wedge designation – so why did LCC not investigate this legal avenue; We are led to understand that to take a Judge’s advice on this matter is free of charge.
6. A letter has been sent to the Chief Constable of Merseyside asking for a full investigation into the disclosure by a Senior Labour Councilor that Liverpool City Council were content to refuse Redrow’s application to build on Allerton Priory because they knew they would “throw it” at the Public Inquiry (which would and did inevitably ensue). There are witnesses to this disclosure.
The fact that a very Senior Labour Councilor made this statement is extremely important. Liverpool City Council spent over £100,000 defending its decision to “refuse” permission for the Allerton Priory scheme. The scheme itself could possibly be worth something in the region of £50-100 million to certain parties. If what the Councilor disclosed is true, then it would appear that fraud or malfeasance has likely taken place within public office by one or more public officials in relation to this planning application. Indeed, it would seem that one or more of the following 3 Sections of the Fraud Act 2006 would apply to one or more councilors or officials.
7. It seems to the Allerton Priory campaign that Redrow misled the Inquiry by stating up to 160 houses would be built when they must have known all along they could only build 100. Was this a deliberate inflation of figures to convince the Inspector that they would be assisting LCC to meet its 5 Year Housing Supply?
8. In May 1989 the Secretary of State’s decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL of the Regional Health Authority against the Council’s refusal of permission for residential development on the grounds of Woolton Manor (in the same Green Wedge as Allerton Priory), stating it ‘is a clear vindication of the Council’s Green Wedge policy in this part of the city’. This is also private land, just as Allerton Priory is privately owned land and is of ‘strategic significance in the southern part of the city which is considered worthy of protection.’ We believe that the Inspector has therefore failed to take into account previous decisions made by the Secretary of State on the Woolton-Calderstones Green Wedge.
9. The Mapping firm Esri UK analysed Landsat 8 satellite images from spring 2016 for the 10 cities with the largest populations. Liverpool was ranked rock bottom with 16% green space. We feel that Government and Local Authority representatives should acknowledge this disparity and seek to ameliorate this rather than allow it to be exacerbated by this terrible error of judgement on behalf of the Inspector.
10. There was no Public Consultation in any meaningful sense of the term. This is a legal planning requirement. Consultation was specifically restricted to LCC Councilors only. A late request was made by Maria Eagle MP to meet with Redrow on Allerton Priory land, but they insisted that they would only meet with one representative from SAP which we believed to be totally undemocratic.
Organizer
Steve Hopley
Organizer
