A community group has taken a “major step forward” after a judicial review challenging the legality of a private access road through Putney Common was granted by the High Court.

Last week the Friends of Putney Common (FoPC) was told its application challenging the “easement agreements”, that allowed the construction of the road, was to be heard in one of the country’s most powerful courts.

The FoPC believes these “easements” were signed in secret by the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) and Wandsworth Council in February 2012 as part of the ongoing development of the disused Putney Hospital site.

The private road was built for the future sole use of residents from proposed luxury flats and those using a proposed two-form entry primary school for 420 pupils, to be built on the site which is entirely surrounded by common land.

John Howell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, thought otherwise and described the WPCC’s assertions over Putney Common, that it was legally entitled to provide easements or permission to use land in exchange for cash, were “arguable”.

FoPC spokesman Nicholas Evans said: “After 18 months of acrimonious debate with the WPCC and WBC we welcome this opportunity to establish once and for all whether the Conservators can effectively sell rights to parts of the Common and allow the council to build private roads on it.

“It is a step forward in our campaign to protect Putney Common from what we believe is unlawful encroachment by the council.”

The development’s planning aplication attracted a large number of objections from Putney residents, including more than 500 specific complaints about building roads on the common.

The aplication was originally submitted by the council to itself, acting as planning authority, and was granted in October 2012.

However, this was subsequently quashed by a High Court order in March this year, thanks to the work of the FoPC’s legal team.

At present the site has no planning aplications pending or valid consents. An official date for the judicial review has yet to be decided