DAIRYGEN Ltd ( trading as “ the Shire Horse “ ) v DERBYSHIRE DALES DISTRICT COUNCIUL ( 2025 ) UKFTT 669 ( GRC ) considered whether the closed Shire Horse pub was a asset of community value under Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011. The issue was whether , given that the user under consideration had already ceased, whether it was “ realistic to think “ that there is a time in the next 5 years when there could be non-ancillary use of the building that would further social interests or social well-being of the local community.

The Tribunal found that the likelihood of use as a pub/restaurant in the near future was not realistic. The prospect of a buyer being found who would purchase the former pub and restore it was unrealistic in light of its troubled trading history and its location within a sparsely populated village.

The DRAGONFLY case ( 2025 ) UKUT 51 ( AA ) was distinguished having regard to the pub there being in a busy urban area rather than rural location.

GREAT JACKSON ST ESTATES LIMITED v THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MANCHESTER (2025) EWCA Civ 652 concerns whether restrictive covenants in a lease provide the lessor, which is also the planning authority, with practical benefits of substantial value or advantage, for the purposes of Section 84(1)(aa) and Section 84(1)(a) of the Law of Property Act 1925, in enabling the lessor to prevent a proposed development from going ahead in an uncontrolled manner. The lessor’s concern is that the proposed development might not be completed in a timely fashion or completed at all. The covenants were found to afford the Council practical benefits of substantial value to it. The Council has a legitimate strategy in continuing to influence the use of land on the fringe of the City Centre and to secure its orderly and appropriate development. That interest in the promotion and protection of the site in issue could be furthered through leasehold covenants, in addition to through the statutory planning process.

Asplin LJ, having set out, at para 47, a “helpful framework” to assist with navigating the “detailed and interlocking requirements” of Section 84(1)(aa) and (1A) said: “They are not prescriptive in any way, however, and should not be approached as if they were a rigid checklist which must be adhered to in every case.”

The Appeal in WHITE v ALDER (2025) EWCA Civ 392 is concerned with whether a boundary agreement binds successors in title and whether, if it is capable of doing so, it binds them only if they have knowledge of the agreement.  Asplin LJ considered the relevant authorities at paras 21-53 inc.  She concluded:-

Read more »

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 ( Commencement No.6 ) Regulations 2024, SI. 2024/1138) bring into force on 2 December 2024 provisions in the Act which provide for local authorities to conduct rental auctions of vacant high street and town centre premises, set out the key terms used, and deal with procedures and powers.

The appeal in TALLINGTON LAKES LTD v SOUTH KESTEVEN DC (2024) EWCA Civ 811 concerned the proper interpretation and application of the CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENTS ACT 1960 (the 1960 Act). The issue was as to the payment of an annual site licence fee.

Read more »

In UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM v PERSONS UNKNOWN (2024) EWHC 1529 (KB) the Claimant is granted possession of part of its land that is being used as a protest camp. The order is to prevent persons unknown from entering and using the land. Acts of vandalism and intimidation had occurred there. Once a protest turned into a base account for criminal activity any licence to enter and use the land ceased to apply; para 51.

In R ( WILKINSON ) v ENFIELD LBC ( 2024 ) EWHC 1193 ( Admin ) it is held that the Council was entitled, under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 ( LGA 1972 ), to grant a 25 year lease of part of a park in its area to a professional football club, and to do so freed from a trust for enjoyment by the public under Section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875 ( the1875 Act ). The Council had a wide power under Section 123 of LGA 1972. However, for land forming part of an open space it had to fulfil the requirements of Section 123 ( 2A ) before it could lawfully dispose of such land under Section 123 ( 1 ). Conversely, having fulfilled those requirements, it could, as a result of Section 123 ( 2 B ), dispose of such land freed from any trust arising solely by virtue of the land being held in trust for the enjoyment of the public under Section 164 of the 1875 Act.

In addition to the provisions of the Public Health Act 1875, the Open Spaces Act 1906 and the Local Government Act 1972 on acquisition, appropriation and disposal of land, and statutory trusts for the public enjoyment of open space, there is, applicable to London Borough Councils and parks and open spaces, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation ( Greater London Parks and Open Spaces ) Act 1967. These provisions are considered in R ( WILKINSON ) v ENFIELD LBC ( 2024 ) EWHC 1193 (  Admin ), where a judicial review challenge to an agreement between the Council and Tottenham Hotspur Football Club to grant a lease for a sports academy is dismissed.

In R ( STRACK ) v SoS ( 2024 ) EWCA Civ 420 the issue was whether an Inspector determining an application to deregister part of a Village Green and exchange adjacent land under section 16 of The Commons Act 2006 fell into error by wrongly conflating ( 1) the rights of those with legal rights of recreation over the Village Green with ( 2 ) the interests of those local inhabitants who had no such rights.  It was found that the Inspector had not erred. Both those rights and those interests were relevant considerations to which regard must be had. The weight given to each of these interests is a matter of judgment for the decision-maker in each case.

COTHAM SCHOOL v BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL (2024 ) EWHC 154 ( Ch ) concerned a claim under  the Commons Registration Act 1965 foe an amendment of the Commons Register. The Court ruled that a local authority could not appear on the Court Record as two separate defendants, (1) in its capacity as Commons Registration Authority, and (2 ) as landowner. The Court also ruled that a claim by an Academy School for an entry on the Commons Register to be reversed was not an Aarhus Convention claim for the purposes of costs.