AN EXPENSIVE judicial review is being sought over crucial matters of law raised by the town or village green application for Branksome Rec at Poole.

The Campaign for Planning Sanity is launching the legal action to clarify a point of law, which arises in similar cases all over the country and has never been settled.

An average judicial review costs around £15,000 per side but should it go to the Supreme Court this could rise to £100,000.

The Borough of Poole, which has spent £68,500 so far and has an application for Baiter and Whitecliff pending, is likely to defend the action.

Branksome residents’ desire to protect their open space from development, following the proposal by Poole Town FC to build a stadium on it, went before an independent inspector whose recommendation to reject the application was unanimously approved by the licensing sub-committee.

Chris Maile, director of Planning Sanity, who represented Branksome residents at the hearing, believes the inspector’s recommendation was flawed.

The inspector’s 75-page report concluded residents had not proved their use of the land was by right from the council, which owns the land, and not as of right by use.

“It is a complicated legal argument,” said Mr Maile. “There is nothing in law that says that argument is correct. It has never been determined by the courts.”

Planning Sanity is involved in 200-300 applications a year and this issue was raised in about 40 per cent of them, he said.

Council officers argued that registration would prevent activities such as organised sports and improvements like green gyms.

“That’s absolutely incorrect,” he said. “Whatever happened before registration continues after registration. The only difference is you can’t build on it.”

Mr Maile has defended what could prove to be a very costly court action saying it would save money in the long term.

“I’m not being unpleasant or vindictive in going forward with this application. I’m doing it because it’s the right thing to do in the circumstances of this particular case because the issue has to be resolved in the courts nationally,” he said.

Tim Martin, head of legal and democratic services at the Borough of Poole, said they had “robustly rejected” the argument put forward by Mr Maile.

“The council believes that having facilitated a full public inquiry before an independent inspector it is entitled to rely upon the inspector’s findings and recommendations. Our legal advice confirms this view.”