Langridge vs. Calverton greenbelt campaigners
Naomi Imms | 14.10.2009 22:57 | Ecology
On the morning of Tuesday 6th October campaigners gathered at Nottinghamshire County Council Hall to hear that their application to have the greenbelt area of Dark Lane in Calverton registered as a village green had been rejected. This was the latest setback in a long-running campaign to avert housing company Langridge's predations on the area which have threatened since the 1980s.
Campaigners in the public galleries reacted with anger to the news that the recommendation of 'Independent Inspector' Mr Vivian Chapman QC to reject their application would go unchallenged, despite the several serious objections to his findings which remain unanswered. Chapman, whose involvement as Independent Inspector in village green applications has been noted by bloggers, indymedia writers and campaigners for similar causes in other parts of the country, was appointed by the County Council in 2008 to conduct a public inquiry pitching the objections of Langridge Homes Limited, Gedling Borough Council, and landowners with access-related interests against hundreds of conservationists and users of the area.
In the 12-day enquiry chaired by Chapman between June 2008 and March 2009 over one hundred local people including MP Paddy Tipping gave evidence and witness statements to establish 'extensive recreational use' of the area over several generations as required for the designation of village green status. In his subsequent report, the inspector played down such use and judged the applicant's witnesses 'thoroughly unreliable' because of their disagreement with the evidence of two Langridge employees. Bizarrely, this hinged on the single detail that witnesses could produce no uniform collective memory of a pile of light-coloured material in a corner of the Dark Lane site shown in a photograph produced by one of Langridge's employees, alleged to have been taken in June 2003. In conluding his written report, the inspector decided on the basis of selected parts of Langridge evidence that the material was soil, and the witness statements were judged retrospectively on their failure to concur with this.
In a strange twist, this detail became the deciding factor in favour of Langridge's case. In objections lodged with the County Council by the applicant, it has been noted that Chapman chose to ignore contradictions in the two Langridge employees' own evidence on the nature of the material, and the dates and location of its existence. While the inspector decided that applicant witnesses were 'over-influenced by a desire to [..] prevent access for development' in remembering their recreational use of Dark Lane, he failed to consider that Langridge employees might be subject to similarly partial influence – instead describing them as 'impressive and honest witnesses'.
Around fifty of the applicant's witnesses restated their evidence under oath to defend themselves against the charge of dishonesty, but Tuesday's decision signalled that the County Council was unwilling to consider any further objections to Langridge's plan or answer questions over Vivian Chapman's findings. In email correspondence with the applicant, the Council stated that it had reached its decision after 'internal discussion' and verification of 'relevant aspects' with the Inspector, leaving the decision-making process impenetrable. The applicant is receiving legal advice on the likely outcome of a Judicial Review, with a possible focus on the admissibility of the Langridge photo as evidence.
If the Judicial Review fails to secure village green status, the campaigners could focus on the wildlife value of the area as a listed Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and important habitat for nationally rare species including bats, the white-letter hairstreak butterfly and great-crested newt – the latter of which should be statutorily protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Unfortunately it is not a straightforward task to fight the cause on an environmental front. Before March of this year development on SINCs would not normally be permitted, but this policy was superseded by the development-oriented East Midlands Regional Plan. The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust fought a plan for 1,200 new houses on greenbelt in Edwalton on ecological grounds which also apply to the Dark Lane area, but was defeated earlier this year amid similar allegations that public evidence at the inquiry was ignored in the drive to meet housing targets. Greenbelt land in Nottinghamshire appears increasingly vulnerable.
In the 12-day enquiry chaired by Chapman between June 2008 and March 2009 over one hundred local people including MP Paddy Tipping gave evidence and witness statements to establish 'extensive recreational use' of the area over several generations as required for the designation of village green status. In his subsequent report, the inspector played down such use and judged the applicant's witnesses 'thoroughly unreliable' because of their disagreement with the evidence of two Langridge employees. Bizarrely, this hinged on the single detail that witnesses could produce no uniform collective memory of a pile of light-coloured material in a corner of the Dark Lane site shown in a photograph produced by one of Langridge's employees, alleged to have been taken in June 2003. In conluding his written report, the inspector decided on the basis of selected parts of Langridge evidence that the material was soil, and the witness statements were judged retrospectively on their failure to concur with this.
In a strange twist, this detail became the deciding factor in favour of Langridge's case. In objections lodged with the County Council by the applicant, it has been noted that Chapman chose to ignore contradictions in the two Langridge employees' own evidence on the nature of the material, and the dates and location of its existence. While the inspector decided that applicant witnesses were 'over-influenced by a desire to [..] prevent access for development' in remembering their recreational use of Dark Lane, he failed to consider that Langridge employees might be subject to similarly partial influence – instead describing them as 'impressive and honest witnesses'.
Around fifty of the applicant's witnesses restated their evidence under oath to defend themselves against the charge of dishonesty, but Tuesday's decision signalled that the County Council was unwilling to consider any further objections to Langridge's plan or answer questions over Vivian Chapman's findings. In email correspondence with the applicant, the Council stated that it had reached its decision after 'internal discussion' and verification of 'relevant aspects' with the Inspector, leaving the decision-making process impenetrable. The applicant is receiving legal advice on the likely outcome of a Judicial Review, with a possible focus on the admissibility of the Langridge photo as evidence.
If the Judicial Review fails to secure village green status, the campaigners could focus on the wildlife value of the area as a listed Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and important habitat for nationally rare species including bats, the white-letter hairstreak butterfly and great-crested newt – the latter of which should be statutorily protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Unfortunately it is not a straightforward task to fight the cause on an environmental front. Before March of this year development on SINCs would not normally be permitted, but this policy was superseded by the development-oriented East Midlands Regional Plan. The Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust fought a plan for 1,200 new houses on greenbelt in Edwalton on ecological grounds which also apply to the Dark Lane area, but was defeated earlier this year amid similar allegations that public evidence at the inquiry was ignored in the drive to meet housing targets. Greenbelt land in Nottinghamshire appears increasingly vulnerable.
Naomi Imms
e-mail:
naomi_676@msn.com