In STOCKPORT MBC  v PERSONS UNKNOWN (2023) UKUT 53 ( LC ) it is held that where a local authority had acquired land under a CPO, but had been unable to identify the owner of the land, it was NOT required to serve a Notice to Treat, under Section 5 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965, prior to payment into Court of the amount of compensation determined by the UT and completion of the vesting of the land by Deed Poll. The Section 5 requirement to give a notice to treat to persons interested in the land applied only where such persons were “known to” the acquiring authority after making “diligent enquiry”.

Land which is subject to a statutory trust in favour of the public is held by a local authority for the purpose of the public’s enjoyment.  In order for an authority to dispose of this type of land it must comply with statutory consultation requirements under Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972).  The issue raised in R (DAY) v SHROPSHIRE COUNCIL (2023) UKSC 8 is what happens to the public right to use this type of land when the authority disposes of the land, but has failed to comply with these requirements. Read more »

In DAVIES v BRIDGEND CBC (2023) EWCA Civ 80 the Court of Appeal considers whether there is an actionable nuisance and entitlement to damages for diminution in value of neighbouring land when the is knotweed on the defendant’s land. Potentially YES, if the knotweed encroaches from the Council’s land onto the claimant’s land and interferes with the claimant’s quiet enjoyment or amenity. NO, if the knotweed is only on the Council’s land, even if it is close to the boundary and there is a risk of it invading the claimant’s land. Any diminution in value of the claimant’s land is pure economic loss and not recoverable.

In EARL SKILTON TOWN COUNCIL v MILLER (2023) EAT 5 the EAT upholds an ET decision that the Town Council had discriminated against an employee because of her sex by providing inadequate toilet facilities for women. Female employees suffered a detriment and were treated less favourably than male employees.

In FEARN v BOARD OF TRUSTEESOF TATE GALLERY (2023) UKSC 4 the Supreme Court holds that it is possible, as a matter of principle, for a private nuisance to exist where residential property is subject to visual intrusion. A nuisance is a use of land which wrongfully interferes with the ordinary use and enjoyment of neighbouring land. To amount to a nuisance, the interference must be substantial, judged by the standards of the ordinary person.

Even where there is a substantial interference, the defendant will not be liable if it is doing no more than making a common and ordinary use of its own land. What constitutes an ordinary use of land is to be judged having regard to the character of the locality, eg whether it is a residential or an industrial area.

It is no answer to a claim for nuisance to say that the defendant is using its land reasonably or in a way that is beneficial to the public. In deciding whether one person’s use of land has infringed another’s rights, the public utility of the conflicting uses is not relevant. The benefit of land use to the wider community may be considered in deciding what remedy to grant, and may justify awarding damages rather than granting an injunction. It does not justify denying a victim any remedy at all.

The Commons Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”) provides a right to apply for the registration of a town or village green (“TVG”) in relation to land which has been used as of right for “lawful sports and pastimes” for at least 20 years by a significant number of inhabitants of any locality, or neighbourhood within a locality.  One effect of the statutory protection given to a TVG is that most forms of development or precluded.  Because of concerns that the TVG registration system was being used to prevent development proposed or approved through the planning system, the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 (“the 2013 Act”) amended the 2006 Act so as to disapply the right to apply to register land as a TVG if one of a number of “trigger events” takes place. One such event is where a development plan document identifies the land in question “for potential development”.

Read more »

The Supreme Court has given permission to appeal in R (Day) v Shropshire Council about a dispute over what happens when a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational services without complying with the relevant statutory requirements.

Milton Keynes Council v Wilsher (2022) EWHC 578 (QB) restates, at para 5, the approach to be taken in determining a question of adverse possession : –

Read more »

R (Gardner) v Lancaster City Council (2021) R.V.R. 177 was concerned with a claim for additional compensation under Section 23 of the Land Compensation Act 1961. There were two issues. The first was whether planning permission could be deemed to have been granted within 10 years. The Judge, Martin Rodger QC, addresses the interpretation of “ deemed”. The second was whether a planning permission was granted for the purposes of the 1961 Act when a resolution to grant was passed subject to conditions such as entry into a Section 106 agreement. No, says the Judge, at para 49.

Lambeth LBC v Grant (2021) EWHC 1962 (QB) concerns a claim by the Council as freehold owner of Clapham Common. Part of the Common has been occupied by individuals known and unknown. They have set up a camp. The camp has generated complaints from local residents. By this action the Council sought to recover possession of its land. It was held that the Council was entitle to an order for possession.
Read more »