The Surrey ( Structural Changes ) Order 2026, has been laid, pursuant to the Local Government etc Act 2007. It provides for a SINGLE TIER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT in Surrey. The Order ABOLISHES the County of Surrey as a local government area. It winds up and dissolves the County Council and district councils. It CREATES two new non-metropolitan district councils, East Surrey ( Articles 4 and 7-10 and Schedule 1) and West Surrey ( Articles 4 and 7-10 and Schedule 2 ), with transitional provisions ( Articles 10-16 ) and SHADOW AUTHORITIES until 1 April 2027 ( Articles 17-41 )and provision for ELECTORAL matters ( Articles 42-49. )
CLEAN ENERGY
February 10th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureAn official publication addresses PLANS for growing local and community-owned CLEAN ENERGY PROJECTS.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT 2026-2027
February 10th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesThe Government has set out their FINAL PRIOPOSALS, including distribution of the total FAIR FUNDING ALLOCATION, allocation between Mayoral Strategic Authorities and local authorities, the MULTI-YEAR SETTLEMENT, and “resetting” the BUSINESS RATES RETENTION SCHEME.
VOTING
February 10th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Elections and BylawsA House of Commons Research Briefing discusses FLEXIBLE VOTING PILOTS for English LOCAL ELECTIONS in May 2026 and 2027.
FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL
February 9th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn FALLAH v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2026) UKFTT 190 (GRC) the FTT discusses the scope of its power under Section 166(2) of the DATA PROTECTION ACT 2018. The FTT emphasizes that this power is narrow, and expressly limited to the supervision of PROCEDURAL matters.
It does NOT provide power to consider or review the SUBSTANCE of any decision made by the INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. The forum for challenging whether the steps taken to investigate the complaint were appropriate or whether relevant evidence was considered is JUDICIAL REVIEW in the High Court.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
February 6th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationR ( CHO ) v GOVERNORS OF LONSDALE SCHOOL ( 2026 ) EWHC 166 ( Admin ) reiterates, at paras 93-96 that “The mere fact that a judicial review concerns past conduct does not automatically mean that the claim has become academic.”
JUDICIAL REVIEW
February 4th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationIn R ( LUTON LANDLORDS AND LETTING AGENTS ) v LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL ( 2026 ) EWCA Civ 35 the Court of Appeal, at para 58, reiterates that the DUTY ON A CLAIMANT to DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS requires that the Claimant provides a “ candid, accurate and sufficiently detailed description of facts material to the claim for judicial review.”
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
January 30th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureOn whether a body is a PUBLIC AUTHORITY to which the ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS are applicable, SA CERTIFICATION LTD v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ( 2026 ) UKFTT 104 ( GRC ) reiterates that the critical question is whether the powers vested in the body are beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relation to persons governed by private law, and give the body an ability that confers on it a practical advantage relative to the rules of private law.
SEX DISCRIMINATION
January 30th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and LeisureIn SEX MATTERS v CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION ( 2026 ) EWHC 149 ( Admin ) Lieven J was concerned with the EQUALITY ACT 2010 in relation to admission arrangements at open air swimming ponds on Hampstead Heath. The Judgment is instructive on the preliminary issues of delay/prematurity and standing/alternative remedy.
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
January 29th, 2026 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyIn HUTCHINSON v COUNTY DURHAM & DARLINGTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (2026) WL 00177607, at paras 425-446, it is held that , by permitting a biological male, transgender woman, to use a female changing room, the only space made available to them, the Trust, as a public body, had infringed the Claimants’ right to respect for private life, under ECHR ARTICLE 8, and bodily autonomy. The Trust had been unable to demonstrate PROPORTIONALITY.