In Francis v Vista Del Mar Developments Ltd (2019) UKPC 14 Lady Arden stated the issues for determination on the appeal to the Privy Council from the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal as follows:-

Read more »

The School Sites Act 1841 (“the 1841 Act”) was passed in order to encourage and facilitate the provision of up to one acre of land for use as “a site for a school for the education of poor persons, or for the residence of the schoolmaster or schoolmistress, or otherwise for the purposes of the education of such poor persons in religious and useful knowledge”. In the majority of cases it was used to provide land for local Church of England elementary (or what we now call primary) schools. The purposes set out in the 1841 Act are charitable educational purposes all of which specify a particular use of the land conveyed. The grantor is entitled to select between the statutory purposes as the terms of the trust on which the land is conveyed and may even supplement or modify the statutory purposes with provisions of his own choosing. But, it is the statutory purposes specified in Section 2 of the 1841 Act which determine the duration of the grant. If the land ceases to be used for the statutory purposes selected in the conveyance then title to it reverts to the estate of the grantor. Read more »

In Alexander Devine Children’s Cancer Trust v Millgate Developments Limited (2018) EWCA Civ 2679 the Court of Appeal considered the modification of restrictive covenants pursuant to Section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925.  The covenants in question prevented residential development on an area of open land. The modification applied for would allow such development. The Upper Tribunal had a discretion whether to modify the restrictive covenants or not. The Tribunal will not generally be inclined to reward parties who deliberately flout their legal obligations by deliberately breaching a restrictive covenant. Read more »

The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal in conjoined cases R (Lancashire County Council) v SoS for DEFRA and R (NHS Property Services) v Surrey County Council on town and village greens, local authority owned land, and the important concept of “statutory incompatibility”.

The Local Government (Boundary Changes) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1128, provide that, when two or more councils come together through a merger to create a single, district council, there is a smooth transition, in practical terms, from the predecessor councils (the councils that will be abolished on the reorganisation date) to the successor council (the new council that is being created for the whole of the area). The Regulations provide for incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary arrangements in consequence of any Orders made by the SoS under Section 10 of the Local Government etc Act 2007.

The issue in TW Logistics Ltd v Essex County Council (2018) EWCA Civ 2172 was whether part of a working port had been properly registered as a town or village green (“TVG”). Barling J had held that it was. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. A landowner is free, and indeed has the right, to continue in his previous commercial or other activities on the land after registration, so long as he does not interfere with the corresponding right of local inhabitants to continue in their use of it for recreation.

In R ( WX ) v Northamptonshire County Council ( 2018 ) EWHC 2178 ( Admin) Yip J ruled that the Council’s library closure decisions were unlawful. The grounds considered were the duties under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, with respect to consultation and the PSED, and under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and Section 5A(1) of the Childcare Act 2006. Yip J said, at para 116, that the need to make savings was “ a legitimate, indeed, necessary driver”for further cuts, but it not relieve the Council’s duty to Act lawfully.

In Banner Homes Ltd v St Albans City and District Council (2018) EWCA Civ 1187 a landowner appealed against the Council’s listing under Section 88 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the Act”) of its undeveloped land as a community asset. The land was situated in the metropolitan green belt. It was crossed by two public footpaths. It had been used for more than 40 years by the local community for peaceful and beneficial recreational activities.

The landowner had been well aware of the existing community use when it purchased the land in 1996. It had taken no steps to oppose the use since.

The 820 strong residents’ association made a community nomination for the land to be listed as an asset of community value. The Council acceded, listed the land, and notified the landowner. The landowner applied for an oral review. Read more »

Rittson-Thomas v Oxfordshire County Council (2018) EWHC 455 (Ch) concerned two grants of land under Section 2 of the School Sites Act 1841 (“the 1841 Act”). It gave rise to a question concerning the exercise of the power of sale contained in Section 14 of the 1841 Act. Although the operation of the 1841 Act has been amended by the Reverter of Sites Act 1987 (“the 1987 Act”), the 1841 Act remains in force, and has, it seems, generated a good deal of litigation. However, the question at the heart of this case had not previously fallen for determination. Read more »

The Compulsory Purchase of Land etc Regulations 2018, SI 2018/253, amend the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Written Representations Procedure) (Ministers) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/2594) (“the 2004 Regulations”). The amendments make a number of procedural changes to the 2004 Regulations, including to authorise the use of electronic communications and to set out the modifications which will apply where a “confirming authority” appoints an Inspector to act instead of it in relation to the confirmation of a CPO. The “streamlining” amendments provide that any site visit under the written representations process must be undertaken within 15 weeks of the “starting date”, making clear that the 2004 Regulations will be subject to a number of modifications where a confirmation decision is delegated to an Inspector, making various changes to reflect that the decision whether to confirm the CPO will be taken by the Inspector, and clarifying where certain procedural steps will not be required; setting out the procedures to be followed where a decision whether or not to confirm a CPO is quashed following a successful legal challenge; and authorising the use of electronic communications under the 2004 Regulations. Read more »