High Court dismisses plea to re-open Chiswell Green homes inquiry

St Albans City & District Council refused permission for two developments, but the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities later approved them.

Campaigners from Keep Chiswell Green brought the case against the Secretary of State, developer Cala Homes (Chiltern), Headlands Way Ltd and the district council.

Keep Chiswell Green campaigners, including Shirani St Ledger McCarthy (second from left) (Image: Will Durrant) The planned developments include 391 homes from Cala and 330 homes for key workers from Headlands Way, both on adjacent sites on the Green Belt in Chiswell Green.

All homes in the latter development are planned to be affordable, according to the government’s definition of the term.

Keep Chiswell Green claimed that the Secretary of State’s decision was unlawful because it did not consider a Green Belt review carried out by consultants Arup – but the review had not been brought to the Secretary of State by the campaigners, or anybody else.

The Arup review, commissioned by the council as part of their Local Plan preparations, said neither of the sites should be considered for development.

Mrs Justice Lang heard that the Arup review had only concluded after the inquiry had finished and that an earlier report on the Green Belt had been used instead.

The earlier report, known as the SKM review, was found to be flawed during the 2018 Local Plan examination.

Justice Lang said Keep Chiswell Green could have asked the inspector to take the Arup review into account even after the inquiry had finished, but did not do so.

They sent detailed submissions to the Secretary of State in February 2024, but they did not include the Arup review.

Justice Lang noted that Keep Chiswell Green’s only explanation for not mentioning the Arup review at an earlier stage was that they were “unaware” they could use new material.

But she said: “I find this explanation to be inadequate. [Keep Chiswell Green] is an experienced campaigner.

“The professional quality of its letters and submissions indicate that its officers are highly educated, intelligent people who understand the issues and are not diffident.

“They express their views with vigour. 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, spokesperson for Keep Chiswell Green, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service they had been “warned repeatedly” that if they brought the Arup review to the planning inspector as new evidence, they risked having costs awarded against them.

She added that when she had tried to bring it up at the inquiry, “half the room shouted at me in unison that they thought I was going to introduce new evidence”.

Ms St Ledger McCarthy said the group is “hugely disappointed” by the judge’s ruling and is considering whether to appeal against it.

The group, which is funded by donations, may be liable to pay part of the costs for the defendants, capped at £10,000, as well as its own legal costs. If they choose to appeal the decision, and lose, they would be liable for another £10,000.

The judge’s ruling was, however, welcomed by Freddie Poser, director of pro-housebuilding group Priced Out.

He described Keep Chiswell Green as “NIMBYs” and said it was “great to see” the homes can be built.

Ms St Ledger McCarthy responded: “Some of us obviously live on the edge of the sites.

“But we represent 98 per cent of Chiswell Green – which is 1,250 houses – and not everybody lives on the edge of the sites proposed for development.

“What they don’t take into consideration is that St Albans needs social, rented housing. That is predominantly what we need. But these sites aren’t going to provide that.”

In rejecting the application, St Albans City & District Council originally concluded that “very special circumstances” required for building on the Green Belt did not exist to allow the developments to go ahead. 

But, while the national planning inspector gave “substantial weight” to harm to the Green Belt, he said there would be “very substantial benefits from the scheme”.