Felling Trees

May 3rd, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and Leisure

The felling by a local highway authority of trees in the highway, including its pavements and verges, is not “development” under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It does not require planning permission, or an environmental impact assessment, or consultation.  On the contrary, when such a tree is a source of danger or obstruction or needs to be moved in order to facilitate highway repairs, the authority is under a statutory obligation to remove the tree pursuant to its Highways Act 1980 duty to repair and maintain the highway.  So held in R (Dillner) v Sheffield City Council (2016) EWHC 945 (Admin).

 

Age assessment and litigation fairness

April 27th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation, Social Care

The Court of Appeal handed down an interesting and wide- reaching judgment yesterday (26th April 2016) in LB Croydon v Y [2016] EWCA 398. It directly concerns age assessment cases, but the principles enunciated apply to all litigation, private and public.

Y was an asylum seeker who was assessed by LB Croydon for social services needs.  He was assessed as being over 18.  He brought a judicial review age assessment challenge.  The Upper Tribunal  gave directions listing the case for a 4 day hearing.   Five months later, Croydon applied to the UT for an order that the claim should be struck out or stayed unless Y consented to and co-operated fully with (1) a dental examination (including a dental X-ray), (2) a psychiatric examination and (3) an age assessment by two Croydon social workers.

In making this application, Croydon relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Starr v National Coal Board [1977] 1 WLR 63.  Starr was a personal injury claim.  Mr. Starr accepted that in preparing its defence, the NCB needed to be advised by a consultant neurologist who had had the opportunity of examining him. But he objected to examination by the particular doctor chosen by the NCB without explaining why.  He said that he was willing to be examined by any other consultant neurologist of similar qualification and experience.  The NCB applied for a stay of all further proceedings until Mr. Starr submitted to an examination by its chosen doctor.  The Court of Appeal upheld the stay that had been granted by the judge.

The UT judge refused Croydon’s application, saying that it was “most unfortunate” that Y’s representatives would not co-operate, but that it would be “too draconian” to stay or strike out the proceedings.  The judge said that Starr did not apply, first, because (unlike Mr. Starr) Y had not conceded that Croydon’s assessments were necessary; and second, because this was public rather than private law litigation.

Overturning the UT judge’s decision, Lord Dyson MR gave the only reasoned judgment, Macur and Lindblom LLJ agreeing.  On the first point, he said at [16] that it didn’t matter whether there was a concession or not: the question was whether the assessments were in fact “reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of Croydon’s defence”.   The UT judge himself had decided that they were.

On the second point, Lord Dyson said at [17] that “there is no basis in principle for confining the Starr principles to private law litigation… The fundamental common law right of a defendant to defend itself in litigation to which Scarman LJ referred [in Starr] applies in any litigation”.

This is important since it makes it clear that the Starr principle is of general application, whether in courts or tribunals. So – as an example only – the first-tier tribunal should apply similar principles in special educational needs cases where a young person’s needs are in question and the authority or school wants to assess them.

Lord Dyson finished by deciding that, though a UT judge had the normal discretion as to case management issues, there was no reason in the current case for the judge to have decided that the steps which Croydon wanted Y to take could not be properly accommodated in the proceedings. 

So the outcome was that the unless order sought by Croydon was made.

Peter Oldham QC

 

 

 

Brexit: the Information Commissioner speaks

April 26th, 2016 by Peter Oldham QC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty, Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

At the beginning of March this year, I wrote a paper on the legal mechanics of Brexit.  (You can find it here if you are interested.) One of the things it discusses is how the UK  – or in some cases England and Wales, and (separately) Scotland – would go about retaining or replacing EU-derived law if the UK left the EU.

On 19th April 2016 the Information Commissioner’s Office put out this statement:-

“The UK will continue to need clear and effective data protection laws, whether or not the country remains part of the EU.

The UK has a history of providing legal protection to consumers around their personal data. Our data protection laws precede EU legislation by more than a decade, and go beyond the current requirements set out by the EU, for instance with the power given to the ICO to issue fines. Having clear laws with safeguards in place is more important than ever given the growing digital economy, and is also central to the sharing of data that international trade relies on.”

Data protection is an interesting example of how Brexit might affect our law, and throws up the sort of questions which would apply across the legal board in the event of a “leave” vote.

Much of our data protection law, though derived from EU instruments, is embodied in primary legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998 – so that the repeal of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 (if that happened) would not in itself result in the repeal of our data protection framework.  The same is not true in many other fields, which are governed by statutory instruments made under section 2 of the ECA 1972, rather than primary legislation.

But the DPA is currently to be to understood in the light of EU-derived principles and caselaw.  If we left the EU, and kept the DPA, would those principles and the caselaw have grown domestic roots and continue to shape the interpretation of the DPA?

Another question. To what extent would leaving the EU allow the UK to reconsider what sort of data protection regime it wanted?  Principles of privacy are separately embodied in Article 8 of the ECHR, which will remain enforceable under the Human Rights Act 1998, regardless of the outcome of the  vote on 23rd June.  And if a significant information protection gap were left as a result of the re-shaping of our data protection law post-Brexit, common law or equity might step in.

This leaves out of account questions of what (if any) information protection arrangements the EU might be looking for from the UK in bilateral trade and security arrangements. But that is a political question.

Peter Oldham QC

 

 

Backfilling Disused Quarry with Waste

April 25th, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and Leisure

In Case C-147/15, Provincia di Bari v Edilizia Mastrodonato srl, Advocate General Kokott, in her Opinion delivered on 21 April 2016, observed that the Italian Region of Apulia continually confronts the ECJ with environmental questions.  By way of example only: how, in the light of the Habitats Directive, are certain decisions of a City Council to be judged? Does that Directive prohibit the installation of wind turbines in bird protection areas?  Was there any illegal waste disposal site in that Region or not?  She further observed that perhaps these cases have contributed to an increased awareness of the competent authorities, so that they were keeping a critical eye upon plans for backfilling a former quarry with waste.

In any event, the authorities were in dispute with the operator of such a project as to which the strict provisions of the Landfill Directive are applicable or just the general law on waste. At the basis of the dispute is the fact that the Mining Waste Directive refers to the Landfill Directive for the backfilling of excavation voids with waste. The Court must now ascertain whether this reference is to the legal ground or the legal consequences, that is whether the conditions for application of the Landfill Directive must be met or whether its legal consequences are applicable to backfilling without further examination. This question is influenced by differences in the language versions in which the reference to the Landfill Directive is formulated. Moreover, the Court must in particular address whether and under which conditions the backfilling of a quarry with waste is a waste recovery operation or a waste disposal operation.

In order to clarify whether the backfilling of the quarry falls under the Landfill Directive, the Advocate General identified three questions: (1) whether the Landfill Directive is always applicable to the backfilling of a quarry with waste; (2) whether the Landfill Directive is applicable only to operations consisting of waste disposal or also to recovery; and (3) whether the backfilling of a quarry with waste is to be seen as disposal or recovery.

She answered the first question that backfilling with waste other than extractive waste is subject to the Landfill Directive when the conditions of application of that Directive are met.

She responded to the second question, as to the scope of application of the Landfill Directive, as follows. The distinction between the disposal and the recovery of waste is of central importance in the EU law on waste. In the hierarchy of waste, disposal is in last place, being the worst option, whereas recovery is in the second to last place. Recovery is therefore in principle to be preferred over disposal. Recovery serves as a sensible use of waste, as the waste replaces other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function.  Recovery of waste through the deposit of waste onto or into land does not fall under the Landfill Directive.

She concluded that the Landfill Directive is not applicable to recovery of waste, but only to the disposal of waste through its deposit onto or in the ground. However, only after suitable waste is completely recovered through some procedure, and thus has acquired the same properties and characteristics as a raw material used for backfilling, could it fall outside the application of the law on waste.

Thirdly, in order to establish whether the specific provisions of the Landfill Directive or just the general stipulations of the Waste Directive apply to backfilling quarries with waste, it must be clarified whether, or under which conditions, this use is to be seen as waste disposal or waste recovery.  She said that this question is to be answered on the basis of the currently applicable Waste Directive, as so far no waste has been deposited in the quarry. All waste coming into question must as a result be treated in accordance with the currently applicable provisions. The fact that the authorisation procedure for backfilling the quarry was initiated when the consolidated former Waste Directive was still in force cannot alter that conclusion. The definition of “disposal” in Article 3(19) of the Waste Directive encompasses any operation which is not recovery, even where the operation has as a secondary consequence the reclamation of substances or energy. Article 3(15) of the Waste Directive defines “recovery” on the other hand as any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. This definition largely corresponds to the case-law of the Court on the old Waste Directive. 

Recovery has two conditions, namely that first the waste must serve a useful purpose and secondly must replace materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function.  The first condition is essential, as only a useful employment of waste can even be recognised as a recovery of waste. The use of waste for backfilling quarries seems in principle to be useful. However, the definition of disposal already shows that the reclamation of substances or energy does not preclude a disposal, and that a useful employment of waste in itself is not sufficient. More crucial to a recovery operation is that the waste replaces materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function. The UK rightly points out this characteristic. Because of high costs, this Member State doubts that quarries would typically continue to be backfilled when no waste is available for it. The fact that backfilling may possibly be a condition of the authorisation for the quarry alters nothing, as authorisation as a general rule reflects the plans of the operator and can also normally be changed if it should emerge that backfilling would cause disproportionate costs.

At first glance this view is surprising, as the ECJ has already in principle recognised backfilling as a recovery operation. However, those cases concerned the backfilling of galleries which, without long term backfilling, were in danger of collapsing, which could result in damage on the surface.  Comparable risks for disused quarries are clearly much more limited. Where such risks exist, complete backfilling is probably not necessary to counter them. It does not appear necessary in every case to backfill a quarry in order to be able to use that land for other purposes.

Accordingly says the Advocate General the UK is correct in its view that the competent national authorities must carefully assess whether other materials are in fact being replaced through backfilling a quarry with waste. An important indicator in this regard is whether the operator of the quarry has to pay for the waste used or whether he is paid for its use. In the latter case there are strong grounds for the assumption that the quarry would not be backfilled without the waste and it is therefore a case of waste disposal. 

The third part of the question is to be answered in the sense that backfilling a quarry with waste other than extractive waste constitutes a waste recovery operation if the competent authorities determine that the waste serves a useful purpose by actually replacing other materials, which in particular requires the suitability of the waste as a replacement for those materials.

 

Housing allocations policy

April 21st, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Housing

By a change to its housing allocations policy, Ealing Council introduced a Scheme whereby 20% of all available lettings would be removed from the general pool and would be reserved for (a) “Working Households” and (b) “Model Tenants”. In brief, a working household was one where the applicant or another member of the household worked for at least 24 hours per week.  A model tenant was an applicant for transfer who already had a Council secure tenancy but who was seeking more appropriate accommodation and who had complied with the terms of the tenancy.  The broad aims behind the Scheme are to incentivise tenants to work or return to work and to encourage good tenant behaviour.

In R (H) v Ealing LBC [2016] EWHC 841 (Admin) the High Court has ruled the Scheme unlawful.  The four grounds of successful challenge included that the Scheme unlawfully indirectly and without justification discriminated against women, the disabled and elderly persons.  The High Court also found unjustified ECHR discrimination against those who do not hold council tenancies, breach of the PSED, and breach of the Section 11 Children Act 2004 duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

 

Planning Conditions

April 19th, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Planning and Environmental

Ejusdem generis has no place in the interpretation of planning conditions, the Court of Appeal has held in R (XPL Ltd) v Harlow Council [2016] EWCA Civ 378, a Judgment on 15 April 2016 on appeal from a first instance decision on 28 November 2014 with respect to a breach of condition notice served by the Council on 3 June 2014.

Lindblom LJ reiterated the principles at paragraphs 16 and 17. The general rule relating to the interpretation of a planning permission that is clear, unambiguous and valid on its face, is that regard may only be had to the planning permission itself, including the conditions, if any, imposed upon it and the reasons given for those conditions in the decision notice itself.  The planning permission and its conditions must be construed as a whole, as a “reasonable reader” would. If there is ambiguity in the wording of the permission, one can look at extrinsic material, including the application, to resolve it. There is only limited scope for the use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of a public document, such as a planning permission.  It is also relevant to the process of interpretation that a failure to comply with a condition in a public law consent may give rise to criminal liability.

The Court of Appeal found that the planning condition in the Harlow case satisfied the three conditions for validity: relevance to planning, a reasonable relationship to the development permitted, and reasonableness in the sense of its not being perverse. Lindblom LJ said, at paragraph 27, that in interpreting it he did not accept that the “ejusdem generis” principle “has any place” in the interpretation of planning conditions.  He described the suggestion that it did as “novel”.  In any event he saw no need to resort to it.

At paragraph 30 he added:-

“… there is no ambiguity either in the condition itself or in the condition and its reason read together. It follows that there is no need to go in search of extraneous material … as an aid to interpretation.  Conditions and their reasons should be interpreted, if they can be, in a benevolent way, and not in a search for inconsistency or lack of precision …”

 

Promoting Tourism

April 18th, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and Leisure

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.

 

Concession Contracts

April 7th, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

On 18 April 2016 the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016, S.I. 2016/273 (“the Concessions Regulations”), come into force. They implement the 2014 Directive, 2014/23/EU, on concession contracts (“the Concessions Directive”). They extend to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The Concessions Regulations impose obligations on “contracting authorities” (and utilities) concerning the award of “concession contracts”. “Contracting authorities” include local authorities. “Concession contracts” embrace both works and services concessions. They are contracts for “pecuniary interest” concluded in writing under which the consideration consists either solely in the “right to exploit” the works/services or in that right together with payment, and that meet a risk requirement.  That is that the award of the contract shall involve the transfer to the concessionaire of an “operating risk” and that the risk transferred shall involve “real exposure to the vagaries of the market”.

There is a high threshold: £4,104,394. However, below the threshold general EU Treaty principles will apply if the low threshold of a cross-border interest is applicable.

Parts 1 and 2 of the Concession Regulations set out their scope and principles. Part 3 contains rules on the award of concession contracts. Chapter 1 contains obligations relating to the publication of concession notices and concession award notices (Regulations 31 to 33), the electronic availability of concession documents (Regulation 34) and the prevention of corruption and conflicts of interest (Regulation 35). Chapter 2 of Part 3 contains provisions relating to technical and functional requirements of concession contracts (Regulation 36), the selection and qualitative assessment of candidates (Regulation 38) and award criteria (Regulation 41).

Part 4 contains rules on the performance of concession contracts, including provisions relating to subcontracting (Regulation 42), the modification and termination of concession contracts (Regulations 43 and 44) and reporting requirements (Regulation 45). Part 5 contains provisions about remedies.

 

 

Village Greens

April 6th, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and Leisure

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.

 

Council Tax

March 22nd, 2016 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and Rates

Coll (Listing Officer) v Mooney [2016] EWHC 485 (Admin) is a statutory appeal by the Appellant Listing Officer against the decision of the Valuation Tribunal for England (“VTE”) in which it ordered the Listing Officer to alter the valuation list to show one entry for a property, instead of two.  The property was built as one dwelling, on three floors. However, at some point, the property was converted into two dwellings.  It was listed as two separate units of property (hereditaments) when the valuation list for council tax was drawn up in 1993.

In 2014, the Respondent and her husband (Mr and Mrs Mooney) purchased the entirety of the property, with the intention of converting it back into a single dwelling. They obtained planning permission and listed building consent for a change of use from two dwellings to a single dwelling, together with alterations and extensions. However, there were severe restrictions on the changes they could make to the building because of its status as a listed building.

Upon completion of the works, the ground floor comprised a kitchen, a sitting area, dining room, two bedrooms and a shower room, and a hall leading to the main external entrance to the house. The first floor comprised a drawing room, study, bedroom and bathroom with dressing area.

Mrs Mooney applied to the Valuation Office Agency Listing Officer to alter the valuation list to remove the two entries and to replace them with one entry for the entire property, to reflect the fact that the property had been restored to one dwelling.  In a decision dated 4 December 2014, later reviewed on 9 March 2015, the Listing Officer removed the two entries and replaced them with two new entries. One entry was in band D, comprising the ground and first floors. The other entry was for the lower ground floor only in band A. The reason for the decision was that, in the view of the Listing Officer, the lower ground floor was a self-contained unit. Mrs Mooney appealed to the VTE, which held an oral hearing on 24 July 2015. In its written decision, dated 21 August 2015, it found that the lower ground floor was not a separate unit of accommodation, and allowed the appeal.

The Listing Officer appealed to the High Court on a question of law under the Valuation Tribunal for England (Council Tax and Rating Appeals) (Procedure) Regulations 2009. Lang J dismissed the appeal.

The starting point is that, as a general rule, an hereditament is a unit of property which is self-contained and within the same curtilage, and occupied by the same person. The Listing Officer considered that following the adaptations there is now a single hereditament.  A single domestic hereditament is treated as a single dwelling, unless it is treated as two or more dwellings pursuant to Section 3(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992 (“the Chargeable Dwellings Order”), Articles 2 and 3.

Lang J said, at paragraph 35, that the VTE was entitled, and indeed required, to consider the physical characteristics of the whole house, not just the lower ground floor. She referred, at paragraph 37, to the potential relevance of shared facilities in the remainder of the building.  She concluded as follows:-

“38. … I consider that the VTE was entitled to take into account the fact that the lower ground floor held the communal laundry facilities for the whole house.”

“40. Although the manner in which the building is being used by particular occupiers is clearly not the legislative test, … evidence of actual use may properly be considered. …”

“41. Thus, in my view, it was not impermissible for the VTE to have regard to the evidence that the house was in use as a single household, whose sole kitchen facilities were on the ground floor and sole laundry facilities on the lower ground floor. The key question was whether the panel went on to apply the correct legislative test, namely, had the building been “constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation”. This focuses on the use for which the building has been physically constructed or adapted, not the way in which the occupants were actually using it. …

42. I do not accept the Listing Officer’s submission that the VTE erred in law in taking into account the evidence that there were major restrictions on changes to the construction and layout of the building because it was a Grade II listed building. In my view, this was a potentially relevant part of the evidential background which the panel was entitled to take into account when examining the physical characteristics of the building and asking itself the question whether the building had been “constructed or adapted for use as separate living accommodation”.

43. In my judgment, on a fair reading of the decision, the members of the panel did correctly direct themselves in law. They set out the legislative provisions fully, correctly summarised the legal principles and referred to the case law. …

44. In my judgment, the VTE was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before it, that the way in which the building had been adapted for use, by installing laundry facilities for the whole house in the utility room, and kitchen facilities for the whole house on the ground floor, meant that the utility room was not available for separate and exclusive use as a kitchen, as part of a separate self-contained unit on the lower ground floor. This was a multi-factorial exercise of fact-finding and judgment by a specialist tribunal with which this court should be slow to interfere. …”

“46.   I am entirely satisfied that the VTE did not misdirect itself in law and, on the evidence, its conclusion was a reasonable one. In the circumstances, I do not consider it would be appropriate to set aside or remit the decision merely because the evidence and factual findings were not fully recorded in the decision.”

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »