The Broads Authority (“the Authority”) has rebranded “the Broads” as the “Broads National Park”, in order to attract tourists. The Broads are not, however, a National Park under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (“the 1949 Act”).  Was the rebranding lawful?  Yes, held Holgate J in Harris v Broads Authority (2016) EWHC 799 (Admin).  He held that the adoption of a brand name for marketing purposes did not breach the 1949 Act.

Sections 144 and 265A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the 1972 Act”) authorised the Authority to encourage persons, whether by advertisement or otherwise, to visit the Broads for recreation. It could therefore do anything incidental to the discharge of that function: Section 111(1) of the 1972 Act.  That included promoting the Broads in the UK or overseas.  That included adopting a brand name.  That was a separate matter from legal status. The 1949 Act had no legal monopoly over the use of the term “National Park” and did not prohibit its use outside the legislative scheme under the 1949 Act.

Nor did the branding have a misleading or confusing effect. A lawful name choice had been made.  The Authority had not sought to treat itself as a National Parks Authority.  Nor had it sought to treat the Broads as a National Park in the statutory sense; or to misrepresent the scope of its statutory functions.  There was no abuse of power.

In the context of branding or marketing, the term “National Park” uses ordinary language, and not a statutory concept, to evoke the nationally important qualities of the Broads and stimulate public enjoyment of, and potentially visits to, the Broads. The use of capital letters simply reflected that the Broads is a proper name. It did not alter the legal analysis.

Appointing an independent legal expert to conduct a non-statutory enquiry and make findings is an appropriate mechanism in determining town and village green applications. So reaffirmed Stewart J in Somerford Parish Council v Cheshire East Borough Council [2016] EWHC 619 (Admin), at paragraph 31(iv).  An allegation of lack of independence, or apparent bias, based on the suggestion that the situation looked like the registration authority paying a lawyer to give favourable advice was misplaced: paragraph 35.  The appointee was a barrister in independent practice.  However, parties must be given the opportunity to make further representations on additional material filed late: paragraph 44.  Moreover, in any case where there is a serious dispute on factual issues, a public inquiry will almost invariably need to be held, and determination of the application on the papers will not be appropriate: paragraph 74.

In the test case of Robert Lindley Ltd v East Riding of Yorkshire Council (2016) UKUT 6 (LC) a farming company claimed compensation from the Council under Sections 14 and 14A of the Land Drainage Act 1991 after part of its carrot crop was destroyed when floodwater was pumped out of a nearby village.  The Council was lead local flood authority and a risk management authority.  Nonetheless, it submitted that it was not liable, because (1) flood risk management work had to be of a permanent nature and the pumping operation had been temporary and (2) the crop was damaged when the pumping was carried out by the Environment Agency (“the EA”) and the Fire Service.  Both submissions failed.  As to the first, flood risk management work is not limited to permanent work: Paragraph 93.  As to the second, the relevant risk management authorities falling within the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 were the Council (as the lead local flood authority) and the EA.  The Fire Service did not fall within the definition.  As the lead local flood authority, the Council had failed to carry out its duty under the 2010 Act to investigate who were the relevant risk management authorities and whether they were exercising flood risk management functions.  If it had carried out that duty, there might have been less confusion as to what powers were being exercised.  On proper analysis, the EA had been co-operating with and assisting the local authority.  It had provided the pumps in response to the local authority’s request. The local authority had paid for all the pump fuel, including for the period when the EA was on site in the village.  Very little supervision of the pumps had been required other than to ensure they had sufficient fuel.  On those facts, the pumps had been on loan to the local authority from the time they were delivered. The local authority had exercised its powers to carry out the work and was liable for the damage caused.

A local authority is not entitled to recover VAT on charges for off-street car parking.  The authority is as a matter of principle not a “non-taxable person” for VAT purposes when it charges members of the public for off-street car parking.  Otherwise, there would be “significant distortions of competition”.  So the Court of Appeal has held in the test case of Isle of Wight Council v HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 1303.

Off-street car parking (“OSCP”) is provided and charged for pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the RTRA”), specifically Sections 32, 55 and 122. Any surplus of income over expenditure in respect of OSCP falls into the local General Fund (under Section 91 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988), a single undifferentiated fund from which most local authority activities are financed.  Unlike on-street car-parking receipts, there is no ring-fencing of OSCP which restricts the application of any surplus.

The Court of Appeal concluded that:-

1. In a hypothetical world, in which VAT had never been imposed on OSCPP charges, those charges would have been lower: paragraphs 64-68;
2. Local authorities are permitted to set OSCP charges with a view to at least covering the cost of operating loss-making of free of charge car parks: paragraph 69;
3. When local authorities fix OSCP charges so as to give effect to the various traffic management, planning, economic and environmental policies properly to be taken into account in the provision of OSCP, it is entirely lawful and correct of them to have regard to the overall constraints of meeting the cost of providing OSCP: paragraph 70;
4. The absence of any liability of local authorities to pay VAT on OSCP charges would permit the authorities to meet the cost of providing OSCP while charging less to those using that facility: paragraph 72; and
5. If one supplier in the market for OSCP is able to have lower prices over time because of its special tax status that is likely significantly to distort competition: paragraph 76.

A Council’s Parks Constable is in service as a “member of a constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment” within the meaning of Section 200(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He or she is therefore precluded from bringing a claim for unfair dismissal.  By parity of reasoning, Trade Unions representing Parks Constables are precluded by Section 280 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 from pursuing claims for a declaration and a protective award.  In Wandsworth LBC v Viking, UKEAT/0234/13/LA, the EAT (Slade J) has held that the above holds good notwithstanding Articles 8, 11 and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Claimants were dismissed for redundancy. It was not suggested that their selection for redundancy was for any reason which would affect their reputation, their private or professional relationships.  Redundancy, said Slade J, can be regarded as “perhaps the least blameworthy reason for dismissal”.  None of the authorities supported the proposition that dismissal of itself engages Article 8.  In her judgment the claims did not engage Article 8.  Article 14 was inapplicable because Article 8 was not engaged.  It added nothing in the circumstance where the facts of the case were not within the ambit of Article 8.  There were no Article 8 rights to be safeguarded.

As regards Article 11, the right claimed was a remedy for failing to consult the Trade Union, UNISON, over proposed redundancies. Collective bargaining over employees’ interests falls within Article 11.  Loss of employment through redundancy affects employees’ interests.  Collective bargaining over job losses falls within Article 11. While the means of affording unions their Article 11 rights are left to Member States, Article 11 requires that they be given the means of enforcing those rights.  The UK has chosen consultation as the means of Trade Unions protecting employees’ interests in a redundancy situation.  Unlike representation of other local authority employees, the Claimants had been deprived of that right.  Accordingly, subject to Article 11.2, Article 11, taken together with Article 14, was engaged by the claims for protective awards.

The question therefore was whether the restriction on the exercise of rights by members of the police was lawful. This requires the restriction to be, amongst other things, proportionate.  The EAT was not in a position to rule on proportionality.

In Rollinson v Dudley MBC [2015] EWHC 3330 (QB) Haddon-Care J held that local highway authorities do not have a duty under Section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that its roads, pavements and footpaths are clear of moss, algae, lichen or similar vegetation.  The Judge summarised the relevant principles as follows (paragraph 24): (1) the Section 41(1) duty, to maintain the highway, is properly to be understood as being to “repair” and “keep in repair” the highway; (2) the duty does not include a duty to remove surface-lying material, accretions, obstructions or spillages, whether or not dangerous; and (3) the duty does include a duty to keep the drains and substructure of the highway clear and in good repair.  The Judge held (paragraph 27) that none of those applicable principles or criteria applied in the case before him: (1) moss or algae is, by its nature, to be regarded as transient rather than permanent; (2) the presence of moss or algae cannot be said to amount to, or comprise, material “disturbance or damage” to a road, pavement or pathway or the surface thereof; and (3) moss or algae cannot be said to have become part of the “fabric” of the road, pavement or pathway.

What one might call the “normal” or “traditional” ownership rights of a highway authority lay at the heart of the dispute in Southwark LBC v Transport for London [2015] EWHC 3448 (Ch).  A Vesting Order, SI 2000 No 1152, provided for the vesting of certain highway property in TfL, in connection with the re-ordering of responsibilities for highways in the creation of TfL and its assumption of responsibility as a highway authority for certain roads in Greater London. The Order, by Article 2(1)(a), provided broadly that there were thereby transferred to TfL in relation to each GLA road “the highway, in so far as it is vested in the former highway authority”.

The dispute was as to the extent of the vesting by virtue of the expression “the highway”. Southwark LBC and The City of London were highway authorities for what are now GLA roads in their respective areas. The Vesting Order was obviously intended to have some vesting effect in relation to those roads.  The dispute was as to its extent. In the case of some parts of some of the highways the local authorities owned not merely the top part of the soil, but have full title to the whole of the freehold. The relevant dispute was as to whether, in those circumstances, TfL acquired any more than the relevant part of the surface that it would normally have as a highway authority.

Mann J observed (para 5) that it is well established where a highway is maintainable at public expense the highway authority which is responsible for it has not merely the obligation to maintain it, it also has a limited ownership (unless it has acquired ownership rights by conveyance).  That principle is set out in statute and in authority. He referred to the current statutory provision (which succeeds others) i.e. Section 263 of the Highways Act 1980, which provides, broadly, that every highway maintainable at the public expense, together with the materials and scrapings of it, vests in the authority who are for the time being the highway authority for the highway.

Mann J concluded (paragraph 54):-

“In all the circumstances I do not consider that the arbitrator erred in law in proceeding on the footing that Article 2(1)(a) carried with it the freehold, or other estate, vested in the local authorities as highway authorities, and, in the vertical plane, that it was not confined to what I am calling the surface. …”

Authorities have power to alter street names pursuant to Section 18 of the Public Health Act 1925.  There is an unrestricted right of appeal under Section 8 to the Magistrates’ Court against a decision to rename a street. Basildon BC v James [2015] EWHC 3365 (Admin) was concerned with the approach to be adopted on appeal. 

Other than the giving of notice, Section 18 imposes no preconditions on the exercise of the power. It gives no direction as to factors to which the authority is required to have regard in making such a decision. Garnham J saw no grounds on which a Court could read into the exercise of the statutory power any requirements to be met, or matters to be considered, before the power is exercised, beyond those required by familiar principles of public law, namely to have regard to all that is relevant and to disregard all that is not.

The nature of the power in question is one that demands a subjective judgment by the authority. It cannot be governed by predetermined requirements. Essentially, Parliament has given the authority the right to choose a name.

There can be no doubt that it is the authority who makes the primary decision. The right of appeal given to “those aggrieved” by Section 8 does not change the identity of the primary decision maker.

The entitlement in the Magistrates’ Court on hearing the appeal to “make such order… as they consider reasonable” describes the remedies available to the Court in disposing of the appeal. It does not make the Magistrates’ Court the body charged with the decision whether or not to alter the street name. It follows that before determining what order is required the Magistrates’ Court must first determine whether or not the appeal succeeds; whether or not the authority’s decision was “wrong”.

The statute provides no guidance as to the test which should be applied in determining whether or not the appeal should be allowed or rejected.  In those circumstances, in Garnham J’s view, it was a mistake for the District Judge here to attempt to introduce objectives of his own devising as a means of testing the adequacy of the authority’s reasoning. There is simply no basis for the Magistrates’ Court to create such a list of objectives or to treat is as decisive. The question for the District Judge was whether, according the authority, appropriate respect for its reasoning and conclusions, that decision could properly be said to be wrong.

At paragraph 43 of his Judgment, Garnham J said:-

“… Section 8 provides an unrestricted right of appeal; but a District Judge is obliged to pay great attention to the opinion of the Council as the duly constituted and elected local authority and should not lightly reverse their conclusion; his function is to exercise the Section 8 powers only if he was satisfied that the judgment of the Council could be shown to be wrong, not merely because he was not satisfied that the judgment was right; if, but only if, he was first satisfied the Council was wrong was it for the District Judge to substitute his opinion for that of the Council.”

In Chesterton Commercial (Oxon) Ltd v Oxfordshire County Council (2015) EWHC 2020 (Ch) the Council was found liable to the claimant developer which had relied on its local search results stating that parking spaces which formed part of the property it was buying were not maintainable at public expense. There was at the time an ongoing investigation into whether this was in fact the case and further consideration was required. There was a real risk that the records might be inaccurate and that the parking spaces might be public highway. The response to inquiries said nothing at all about the investigation. The entire title was stated to be private land.

Under the Highways Act 1980 Section 36, each County Council must make, and keep corrected up to date, a list of the streets within their area which are highways maintainable at the public expense. That list is to be kept deposited at the County Council office and is to be available for free inspection at all reasonable hours. In England the County Councils must supply to the council of each district in the county an up to date list of the streets within the area of the district that are highways maintainable at the public expense, and that list must be kept deposited at the office of the district council and kept available for inspection by the public free of charge at all reasonable hours.

The Judge found that, having regard to its statutory duty, the County Council did not make correct and updated information available to the claimant when its solicitors conducted searches. However, the County Council contended that the statutory duties imposed by Section 36 of the Highways Act 1980 gave rise to no private cause of action, and that it owed no independent duty of care to the claimant. It denied any or any actionable negligence. It argued that the only information which it was required to give by Section 36 about highways maintainable at public expense was to identify highways known to be maintainable at public expense. It was not strictly liable for the accuracy of the information and owed no duty at all to identify roads or streets under investigation on its Section 36 lists or maps.

The Judge observed that the question of whether a local authority may be liable to a member of the public in a private action for breach of statutory duty for an inaccurate search result which leads to loss is undecided. The Council argued that there is no such right. The Judge did not, however, find it necessary to decide whether there is a private right of action for breach of the Section 36 duty. This was because a local authority may be liable to a member of the public in tort. In Gooden v Northamptonshire CC [2001] EWCA Civ 1744 it was held that a local authority owed a duty of care in respect of an incorrect answer to enquiries that certain land was maintainable as a highway at public expense. Arden LJ, who gave the leading judgment, acknowledged that purchasers of property commonly relied upon searches in the form of Enquiries made of highway authorities in deciding whether or not to buy properties, and the law could be criticised if it ignored that reality. She also drew an important distinction between mere foreseeability that that information provided would be used in that way and providing information for that purpose. A highway authority cannot be taken to know for what purpose a particular enquiry is being made, but it would know that answers to enquiries are provided within a ‘well worn’ conveyancing framework. Arden LJ reserved the Court of Appeal’s position on whether a breach of the statutory duty to maintain an accurate list would be actionable by a person harmed by a failure to do so. However, she also pointed out that just because the statutory list of roads maintainable at public expense was wrong, it did not necessarily follow that the Council responsible for maintaining the list was negligent, and in that case it was no part of the pleaded case that the Council in the case had been negligent. Not so in the Oxfordshire case. The case in negligent misstatement was pleaded, and was the primary case at trial. The claimant also contended that the Council’s duty at common law was the same as its statutory duty – namely to cause a list to be made of the streets which are highways maintainable at the public expense, to keep that list corrected and up to date, and to supply each district council within its area an up to date list of the streets within that district which are highways maintainable at the public expense.

The Judge ruled that the Council owed the claimant a duty of care at common law with respect to its reply to enquiries for the purpose of the decision which the claimant made to acquire the property, and that the result of the search amounted to a statement by the Council that the car parking spaces were not part of the highway but were private space. She said:-

“34.      It was the Defendant’s proper role, as required by statute, to answer the inquiries made on the search accurately. It did not do so. The Defendant argued that it was sufficient that the result of the search showed accurately what was on the Highway Map. I do not accept that submission. It overlooks the fact that the statute requires the list of streets which are highway maintainable at public expense to be kept corrected up to date. Had the list been correct and up to date it would have been marked as showing that there was an investigation going on. I entirely accept that the Claimant did not make known to the Defendant that it was buying for development and re-sale, but that matters not where the Claimant is not arguing for prospective development losses to be paid by way of damages but relies on diminution of value from pre-existing use.

35.       I find, on the evidence, that if the reply had been accurate, the Claimant might not have proceeded at all, and would definitely not have proceeded at the same price.”

It was acknowledged by the Council’s witness in evidence that purchasers would rely on the results of searches in making decisions about property purchases. More specifically, in this case, it was clear that the Council knew that a purchaser of the land comprised in the title would inevitably want to know if the land comprised within the title was private land or public highway, or highway maintainable at public expense. The conditions for the creation of a duty of care in tort were therefore present, as were the conditions for liability for misstatement. Reliance has also been proven. It was entirely foreseeable by the Council that if the result of the search was wrong, a purchaser might go ahead at a price which was higher than if an accurate response had been given. This is because a purchaser would believe that the car parking spaces were private land as the title suggested and would not know that they were in fact highway. The difference between the price paid and the value without the car parking spaces was a foreseeable head of loss.

The Supreme Court has unanimously allowed the appeal in R (Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council (2015) UKSC 7, concerned with the registration of Newhaven West Beach as a TVG.  The Supreme Court held that it could not be so registered.  This was for two reasons.  The first was that the recreational use of the Beach by inhabitants was “by right”, and not “as of right”.  There was an implied licence from the Harbour Byelaws. The second was that such recreation was incompatible with the Port Authority’s statutory functions.