Hopwood Hall Estate loses High Court case against Rochdale Council over option agreement

Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd has lost its High Court case against Rochdale Borough Council after a judge found that planning permission obtained for Hopwood Hall did not satisfy the planning condition contained in an option agreement concerning the historic property.

The judgment was delivered by His Honour Judge Hodge KC at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on Wednesday, 30 September 2026, following a two-day hearing in Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd v Rochdale Borough Council.

The proceedings centred on whether the requirements necessary for the option agreement to be executed had been satisfied. Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd maintained that it had met the relevant requirements, while Rochdale Borough Council disputed that position.

A substantial part of the hearing concerned the nature and extent of the planning permission obtained for Hopwood Hall and whether it was sufficient for the purposes of the option agreement.

During the first day of proceedings on Tuesday, 29 September, Hopwood DePree gave evidence and was cross-examined by Mr Wheatly, counsel for Rochdale Borough Council.

The court heard detailed questioning concerning the planning permission, proposed physical works, business plans and intended future operation of the Hall.

A significant part of Mr Wheatly's cross-examination concerned proposals for Hopwood Hall to accommodate weddings, events and hospitality activities, and the catering facilities which would be required to support those uses.

Mr DePree's evidence was that he envisaged an outside catering arrangement under which food could be prepared elsewhere and brought across to the Hall, rather than hot food being prepared entirely within a main kitchen inside the building.

Mr Wheatly put it to Mr DePree that, rather than having hot food prepared in a main kitchen at the Hall, his proposal depended upon a catering company bringing hot food across to the building.

The questioning then focused on what constituted a "main kitchen" and what the kitchen within Hopwood Hall would actually be used for under that arrangement.

Mr Wheatly questioned the distinction between a main kitchen capable of preparing hot meals and facilities used for more limited food preparation, including sandwiches. During the exchange, he also made the point that a main kitchen was not simply somewhere for a kettle.

The court heard further questioning about whether a main kitchen capable of cooking hot food would require a flue, whether such a flue formed part of the planning proposals and what physical works would have been necessary to install one within the historic building.

Mr DePree maintained that the proposed catering model involved food being brought to the Hall rather than all hot meals being cooked from scratch inside the building.

The kitchen and flue exchanges formed part of the council's wider challenge to whether the planning permission obtained corresponded with the works and proposed operation of Hopwood Hall.

The parties also disputed the distinction between permission concerning the use of the building and permission for the physical or operational development required to implement the proposals.

During cross-examination, Mr Wheatly sought direct responses from Mr DePree on a number of occasions and, at points, asked him to answer questions with a "yes or no".

Mr Wheatly also referred in court to what he described as Mr DePree's "inability to answer questions".

In another exchange while advancing the council's case, Mr Wheatly used the expression "the claimant letting the tail wag the dog". Those remarks were made by counsel during the proceedings and were not findings by Judge Hodge KC.

The court also heard evidence from Mark Robinson on behalf of Rochdale Borough Council, who was questioned by counsel acting for Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd.

Mr Robinson's evidence concerned the history of the arrangements surrounding Hopwood Hall, the option agreement and matters relating to planning and the proposed future use of the property.

In dealing with the evidence, Judge Hodge KC said he would disregard Mr Robinson's expert evidence, while making clear that he was satisfied Mr Robinson had done his best to assist the court.

The judge also addressed Mr DePree's evidence. While he did not describe Mr DePree as "obstructive", the judge indicated that Mr DePree had not effectively engaged with or answered some of the questions put to him during the proceedings.

On the second day of the hearing, Mr Bowes, counsel for Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd, and Mr Wheatly made further legal submissions concerning the interpretation of the option agreement and the planning permission obtained by the claimant.

The court heard competing arguments about whether the permission was sufficient to satisfy the contractual planning requirement, including submissions concerning change of use, operational development and physical works to Hopwood Hall.

The possible application of Section 73 of the relevant planning legislation was also debated during submissions as part of the wider arguments concerning the planning position.

Mr Bowes advanced the claimant's case that the planning permission obtained was sufficient to meet the requirements of the agreement. Mr Wheatly maintained on behalf of Rochdale Borough Council that it did not satisfy the planning requirement contained in the option agreement.

Judge Hodge KC ultimately found in favour of the council on the central planning issue.

The judge found that the planning permission obtained by Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd did not satisfy the planning-permission condition contained in the option agreement and, consequently, the requirements necessary for the option agreement to be executed had not been satisfied.

The decision represented the central determination of the two-day proceedings. The judgment concerned the legal requirements of the option agreement and whether those requirements had been fulfilled. It was not a determination of the wider merits of restoring Hopwood Hall.

Following judgment, Judge Hodge KC ordered Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd to make a £79,800 payment towards Rochdale Borough Council's costs within 28 days.

The possibility of an appeal was also addressed following judgment. Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd has until 18 November 2026 to obtain the transcript and pursue the appeal process.

Rochdale Borough Council indicated during the proceedings that it did not consider there to be any point in an appeal. That represented the council's position and should not be confused with a finding by Judge Hodge KC on the merits of any future appeal.

The proceedings mark a significant development in the long-running dispute surrounding Hopwood Hall, a Grade II*-listed historic property in Middleton.

The High Court proceedings were specifically concerned with the parties' rights under the option agreement and whether its planning condition had been fulfilled.

Separately, a long-standing volunteer with the Hopwood Hall project said he was “gutted and upset” by the outcome of the High Court case, having supported Hopwood DePree, the charity and the restoration of Hopwood Hall for more than a decade.

The volunteer told us he had been involved with Mr DePree and the Hopwood Hall project since 2013, before the wider volunteer programme began in 2017, and said he had previously experienced no issues with fellow volunteers.

He said: “I am gutted and upset about today’s verdict. I have always supported Hopwood DePree, the charity and the project of restoring Hopwood Hall Estate. I have been involved since 2013 and, for many years, I had no issues with fellow volunteers.”

The volunteer said his experience within the volunteer community changed after he raised an internal matter in which he regarded himself as a victim.

He said: “It was only after I raised an internal issue as a victim that I began to feel the way I was being treated by fellow volunteers had changed. I cannot speak for other people’s reasons or intentions, but I feel what happened internally has resulted in the way I have subsequently been treated.”

The volunteer said he had since felt increasingly excluded from parts of the volunteer community, including being excluded from WhatsApp groups, and felt ignored and given the “cold shoulder” by some fellow volunteers.

He said those feelings continued during the two-day High Court hearing in Manchester, where he felt largely ignored despite his long-standing involvement with the project.

Despite those concerns, the volunteer stressed that his commitment to Hopwood Hall remained unchanged and that his intention had always been to work alongside Hopwood DePree and fellow volunteers towards the shared objective of restoring and protecting the historic estate.

He said: “My commitment has always been to work alongside Hopwood DePree and fellow volunteers towards the restoration and protection of Hopwood Hall Estate. That has been the plan and purpose from the beginning of my involvement in 2013.”

The volunteer added: “Whatever has happened internally, I still want to see Hopwood Hall restored, protected and given a sustainable future. I have always wanted to achieve that alongside Hopwood and the other volunteers who have given their time to the project.”

He said his concerns about how he had personally been treated did not alter his support for Mr DePree, fellow volunteers, the charity or the underlying objective of restoring Hopwood Hall.

Hopwood DePree and the legal team acting for Hopwood Hall Estate Ltd will now consider their options following the judgment, including the position regarding any potential appeal. Further updates are expected once those options have been considered and the next course of action has been determined.