Campaigners' legal bid over aerodrome plan fails

Campaigners travelled to the Royal Courts of Justice to hear the judge's ruling

Campaigners have lost their legal challenge to the sale of an old aerodrome that developers want to turn into a rail freight terminal.

A judge at the Royal Courts of Justice ruled there would not be a judicial review into the plan for Radlett Aerodrome in Hertfordshire.

Protesters had argued that Hertfordshire County Council was obliged to maintain the part of the land it owned as open space.

The authority said it welcomed the judge's ruling, while campaigners said they might appeal the decision.

Property development firm Segro wants to build a freight terminal on 1,000 acres of land at the old aerodrome.

The government gave permission for the project in 2014.

Most of the site was sold by private owners, but 300 acres were owned and sold by the council in a £34m deal.

Campaigners said the council bought the land in 1984 for £1 so it would be kept as "open space", rather than sold for development.

The group St Albans: Fight the Freight also believed there were legal restrictions on the use of the land.

The group raised more than £30,000 to take the council to court over the sale.

An artist's impression shows what the rail freight terminal might look like

Some of the protesters went to the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the hearing.

They heard Mrs Justice Lieven rule that while the council may have intended to keep the land as open space, it had in fact been a farm, which does not count as open space.

She refused permission for a judicial review.

The rail freight interchange would be created on the site of the old RAF airbase at Radlett

A spokesperson for Hertfordshire County Council said: "The decision taken by the judge today to dismiss the case prior to a judicial review is welcome and we will now turn our attention to working with the local district council to maximise the economic benefits that the sale will bring."

A spokesperson for the campaigners said they believed they had grounds to appeal the judge's decision, but had to be mindful of the potential costs of further court action.