On 17 May 2023 DEFRA has published Guidance on understanding the duty upon public authorities, including local authorities, under the Environment Act 2021, to conserve and   enhance biodiversity, and how to comply with that duty, including what must be done by 1 January 2024. The Guidance addresses, amongst other matters, when to meet the duty, objectives and goals, strategies and policies, local nature recovery, species conservation, protected sites, managing land and buildings, education and raising awareness, internal processes, preparing for biodiversity net gain, and reporting biodiversity policies and actions.

R (LEADBETTER) v SoS for TRANSPORT (2023) EWHC 210 (Admin) concerned an important issue for visually impaired people. Visual impairment is of course a disability which is a protected characteristic within the meaning of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The issue was the height of kerbs and Guidance in that connection from the SoS. There were 3 challenges : (1)  breach of the duty of enquiry pursuant to the Equality Act and of the Tameside duty of enquiry under common law; (2) irrationality; and (3) inadequate consultation. (1) & (2) failed. (3)succeeded .(1) and (2) failed because it was a matter of judgment for the SoS and there was sufficient basis for the Court to interfere.  As to (2), this succeeded because time to respond was essential and (12 days and 3 weeks) was “clearly insufficient”. This was especially so given that (i) there was a holiday period,  (ii) many users were known to be visually impaired, (iii) there was a need for further research and user evidence, and (iv) there would have been a realistic possibility that further evidence may have come forward and had an effect on the outcome. Declaratory relief only was granted.

In PORKY PINT LTD v STOCKTON ON TEES BC (2023) EWHC 128 (Admin) Fordham J upholds the revocation of a premises licence following the licence holder’s breaches of regulations introduced in response to the COVID pandemic. The public safety objective in the Licensing Act 2003 was engaged. The licensing objectives were not restricted to “alcohol related” matters. The fact that public health is not a licensing objective does not exclude it from consideration of whether the public safety licensing objective was engaged and relevant.

BOUCHTI  v ENFIELD LBE (2022) EWHC 2889 ( Admin ) concerned Permeant Traffic Orders under Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and the statutory review of them, pursuant to a process akin to, but different from, judicial review. There are requirements that must be satisfied and the procedure followed. However, in this case, albeit the Council had failed to comply with the  relevant requirements, these failures had not caused the complainant substantial prejudice. Nor was the consultation process unfair in the circumstances. Allegations of a closed mind, irrationality, and breach of the Tameside duty were also amongst the grounds rejected. The advantages and disadvantages of continuing the measure were readily identifiable, and the task of balancing them was a matter of broad judgment.

In ANWAR v EALING LBC (2022) EWHC 2464 (KB) it is held that, where an occupier makes a request to a highway authority under Section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980 to build a dropped kerb crossover, to allow vehicular access, and the crossing covers both that occupier’s property and a neighbouring property, there is no requirement to obtain the neighbour’s consent to the crossing. The Judge analysed Section 184. A highways authority could take action in respect of crossovers in 3 cases:

Read more »

Trail Riders v SoS (2022) EWHC 1804 ( Admin ) concerns extinguishment of a public right of way under Section 67(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the exceptions in Section 67(2). Syeyn J said that the exceptions should not be construed restrictively.

In relation to Section 67(2) (a) what was required was a factual assessment of whether the main lawful use by the public of the route during the 5 year period to 2 May 2006 was for mechanically propelled vehicles or not. The word “ main “ denoted chief or predominant use. The statutory provision did not direct the decision-maker as to the factors that should be taken into account. In making an assessment the character of the way was not a mandatory relevant consideration.

In R (Efthimiou) v City of London (2022) EWHC 1588 (Admin) the lawfulness of an  updated charging and fee collection policy for the Hampstead Ladies@ Pond was upheld. The challenge by a disabled swimmer failed. At para 119 and following the Judge said that, as a general principle, charging for leisure facilities is fundamentally fair and reasonable. The revised charges, albeit significant, are heavily subsidised and relatively modest.

In BUTLER-SLOSS v CHARITY COMMISSION (2022) EWHC 974 (Ch) the Court considered the relationship between the investment powers and duties of charitable trustees and the charitable purposes of the particular charity. Policies were ruled lawful that would exclude, so far as possible, investments that were not aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

In the exercise of insolvency powers, significance should be afforded to concerns by the local authority and others about damage to the environment and detriment to the locality: In the Matter of Baglan Operations Ltd (2022) EWHC 647 (Ch).

On the intensity of judicial review, and on the interpretation of international treaties, specifically the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, see R (Friends of the Earth) v SoS (2022) EWHC 568 (Admin).