A Supreme Court ruling on village greens could be "disastrous" for golf courses the length and breadth of the country, a Midlands expert has warned.

Michael Orlik, a consultant in the commercial property department at Stratford upon Avon law firm Lodders, said the decision of the Court could cause major problems to clubs

His comments follow a case in the North-east involving Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council and Persimmon Homes, which had wanted to build on part of Coatham Common in Redcar. Until 2002 the land had been used as part of the Cleveland Golf Club.

The court overturned a series of rulings and backed a campaign to save the undeveloped oasis on industrial Teesside as a village green in a move which has implications for similar conservation battles across the country.

The key finding by five Justices of the Supreme Court upheld the claim of local people to have used the land for "sports and pastimes" for at least 20 years, their central argument against a proposed £55 million housing-led development.

In so doing it rejected assertions that the public had recognised that they had no right to be on the course because they had not crossed the fairways or greens while play had been in progress. Their courtesy in giving way to the golfers did not mean that they were not enjoying the use of the land as of right.

Ruling against the Council, the court decided that, because all users including the golfers had respected each other, everybody could enjoy the land simultaneously and the parties could co-exist.

"This is a very difficult decision for golf clubs," said Mr Orlik.

"Any golf course with footpaths crossing it or which even lets locals pick blackberries from hedgerows, picnic or kick a ball about could now be open to a similar action.

"And to say you can have a village green and a golf course at the same time is totally impracticable. People would be perfectly entitled to play all sorts of other games or just rest on the fairways while members are trying to play shots.

"This is not the first time the highest Court in the land has come down in favour of village greens - it is a dangerous precedent."

The lesson for golf clubs is that they must make it absolutely clear that the land is private and that if there are public footpaths across the course, as is often the case, the Club must erect explicit notices on the course advising members of the public that they have no right to leave the paths.

And, said Mr Orlik, there was also a message to builders who frequently held land banks unused for lengthy periods until they could obtain planning permission for development.

"Developers should take great care over vacant land and not let people wander over it at will."

He claimed the court was being far too idealistic about village green status.

"The traditional centuries old green in the centre of the village is of enormous value. Parliament, in changing the law relatively recently to allow village green status to be established after twenty years recreational use, has sterilised areas of open land nowhere near village centres over which landowners have been unwise enough to allow members of the public to walk and picnic.