Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen’s South Tees Development Corporation and Teesport operator PD Ports have begun a face-off in the High Court in a long-running battle over land access rights.

The trial, which is being overseen by Mr Justice Rajah, is slated to last until the end of the month, but any judgement may not be delivered until later in the year.

PD Ports is defending rights of access to its land holdings on the south bank of the River Tees, while the development corporation wants to seek a declaration, or a statement of fact, as to whether these rights exist at all.The Northern Echo:

Read more: Banks Renewables acquired by PD Ports owner, Brookfield

The dispute, which will see expert evidence called, centres on a right of way between Fisherman’s Crossing and South Gare Road, which extends across the former SSI Redcar steelworks site now controlled by STDC, but also includes elements owned by PD Ports such as the Redcar Quay and parts of Teesport itself.

There have been concerns expressed about the potentially huge bill – particularly to the public purse – which may result from the legal proceedings as a result of costly legal representation.

Meanwhile, PD Ports previously wrote to its tenants on the South Gare peninsula – a popular spot for fishing and leisure – claiming they could lose the ability to access the area if a ruling went against it, something denied by Mr Houchen.

Read more|: PD Ports offers South Gare building to community

STDC and a private limited company it wholly owns, South Tees Developments Limited, has control over 4,500 acres of brownfield land which surrounds Teesport and encompasses the Teesworks site which is being primed for commercial developments such as the SeAH wind monopile factory.

Skeleton arguments setting out both parties’ cases have been obtained by the Local Democracy Reporting Service with PD Ports in its document describing how “for well over a century there was at least neighbourly tolerance, if not indeed harmony” between neighbouring landowners in the area.

But changes caused by the demise of the steel industry on Teesside and STDC being established by the Government to bring forward the redevelopment of redundant steelworks land to create jobs – supported by PD Ports in its role as the statutory harbour authority and with “mutual benefits” for both new industries and its own ports business – are said to have given rise to the proceedings.

The Northern Echo:

PD Ports “historic rights of access” going back more than a century are described as being under express grants, others implied and others arising from prescription through long use.

The fact that some of the rights had not been clearly documented is said to have “not been an issue until very recently”.

It said there was one element of common ground – both the development corporation and PD Ports wanted clarity about the latter’s rights – “but their respective aims are very different”.

The document said: “D [the defendant] is seeking to defend its access rights in the face of proceedings brought by Cs [the claimants] alleging that it had none.

“It has no desire whatsoever to disrupt redevelopment.

“Access to South Gare and to Redcar Quay creates no issues for redevelopment.

“The redevelopment of South Bank will require substantial new access roads in any event and D has maintained a stance of flexibility, willing for its historic rights to be accommodated by these new roads.”The Northern Echo:

However, after an initial period of “greater co-operation” between the parties, following the securing of a compulsory purchase order allowing the development corporation to successfully reclaim former steelworks land from Thai firm SSI and banks which had control of its affairs, the attitude of the claimants and their private sector partners is said to have “shifted to the (misguided) pursuit of commercial leverage over seeing ransom value in denying D any rights”.

The document added: “They [STDC] have since built across the previous roadways on South Bank and their stance remains to try to deny that D has any rights of access to any of its land, other than to Teesport itself along (the public) Tees Dock Road.”

It later said the challenge to its access rights at South Gare was “perplexing” and said it had previously been accepted by STDC there was a right of access.

‘No option but to seek legal determination’ STDC previously said in a lengthy statement that it had no option but to seek a legal determination, something PD Ports has described as costly and unnecessary.

It said neither party could move forward in a “state of uncertainty” because of the active development taking place in the area.

The statement said that if the court determined that PD Ports had access rights, STDC would build that into its redevelopment plans and provide suitable alternative access.

It said that if it concluded the opposite, the development corporation would still be willing to build one in, “but as a public body we have a legal duty to achieve best value for what is the provision of an interest in land”.

This would involve seeking an independent valuation to assess what the best value would be.

It also said it was vital that PD Ports’ legal right to emergency access, where needed, was resolved.

In its skeleton argument amounting to 99 pages – more than twice the size of the PD Ports’ document – STDC and South Tees Developments Limited said that “despite extensive disclosure, witness evidence and expert evidence, D [PD Ports] has come nowhere close to discharging that burden in respect of any of the rights claimed”.

It said: “Indeed, it took D until April 2023 to properly particularise its case as to the location of, and basis for, the rights claimed, and the evidential basis for much of D’s claims remains scanty.”

PD Ports is said to face face “a number of significant legal hurdles in establishing the claimed rights and there are real doubts about the appropriateness of the court granting the discretionary remedy of a declaration to D in all the circumstances of the case”.

Read next:

Get more from The Northern Echo with a Premium Plus digital subscription from as little as only £1.50 a week. Click here.

Referring to discussions between the parties, it said: “D’s strategy in its communications with Cs following Cs’ acquisition of the land – of which its stance in these proceedings is the regrettable culmination – has been to use the vague insinuation that it enjoys rights to exert pressure on Cs to grant it formalised access rights to which it appears to have considered it would not otherwise have been entitled.”

This document said there were “concerns that D would further seek to interfere with development, [so] Cs were left with little choice but to issue the claim on 15 March 2021 seeking negative declarations that D does not enjoy any rights of way across the development land”.

STDC is being represented in court by Mayfair-based real estate and private client law firm Forsters with PD Ports’ representation being arranged by legal services company DWF, based in Newcastle.

Teesworks Limited is a third party in the proceedings and also represented in court.