A COUNCIL has made a U-turn over its decision to grant village green status to a piece of land earmarked for development by a house builder.
Durham County Council has announced it will not contest a judicial review sought by Strathmore Homes over the reclassification of land known as the Top of the Park, in Consett.
The company bought the land, with planning permission, from Derwentside College in 2002 and has started work on part of the site.
A campaign was launched to protect the land by residents, who argued that it had been used for leisure activities in the past.
In August, legal officers for the county council advised against granting village green status. However, members of the authority's licensing, registration and general purposes committee voted in favour.
Now, after receiving further legal advice, the council has decided not to contest the firm's subsequent appeal.
The council's chief executive, Mark Lloyd, said: "Members of the committee wanted to support local people in their bid to keep an open space that they had used for a number of years.
"But as the law stands, it now seems there is nothing we can put forward in legal terms to contest this appeal.
"Although we acted with the best of intentions in coming to our decision, our hands are tied.
"The next step is likely to be that the matter will come back to committee for members to look at the village green application again."
Strathmore Homes director Alex Johnston said council tax payers should not pick up the bill, which he claimed could top £100,000.
He said: "We are obviously concerned that in excess of £100,000 has already been spent in costs on this hopeless village green application.
"Particularly, we see no reason why local council tax payers should be expected to meet the legal costs incurred in these legal proceedings as a result of this decision taken by a handful of councillors.
"We will therefore be writing to Durham County Council, asking for those councillors to be formally identified so that these members can be personally and financially held to account for wasting public funds."
* A council spokesman refused to comment on how much it had spent in legal costs on the matter.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article