Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 deals with the allocation of permanent social housing. Every local housing authority has to have in place allocation scheme. This must be framed so as to secure that a “reasonable preference” is given to certain persons. These include those occupying overcrowded accommodation.
AONB
May 24th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalR (Cross) v Cornwall Council (2021);EWHC 1423 (/Admin) was a successful judicial review of a grant of planning permission for a proposed development in an Area of Outstanding National Beauty. The Council had failed to provide adequate reasons. Fairness required a formulated statement of reasons at common law, even though the proposed development was only of one dwelling, because (para 76) :-
- The site was in a highly sensitive cliff-top setting on the Heritage Coast and in the AONB;
- The Committee departed from the Officers’ Report and the Development Plan;
- The Officer Recommendation was that the development would give rise to unacceptable harm to the AONB; and
- There was extensive public opposition to the development.
Calculation of Limitation Period
May 21st, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and LitigationThe issue in Matthew v Selman (2021) UKSC 19 was whether, where a cause of action accrues at, or on the expiry of the midnight hour at the end of a day, the following day counts towards the calculation of the limitation period. The Supreme Court holds that, in a midnight deadline case, such as an action brought in tort, contract or breach of trust, subject to respectively Sections 2, 5 and 21 of the Limitation Act 1980, there is a complete undivided day following the expiry of the deadline, which should be included when calculating the limitation period. This is different from the situation where a cause of action accrues part-way through a day, and the general rule excludes that day for limitation purposes.
Green Belt
May 20th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIn Sefton MBC v SoS (2021) EWHC 1082 (;Admin) the Court interpreted paras 143 and 144 of the NPPF. Read together, they emphasised the seriousness of harm to the green belt. That is to ensure that the decision-maker has in mind the nature of the “very special circumstances” requirement before development is approved. They do not however mandate a mathematical exercise in relation to each element of harm. There is a single exercise of planning judgment to assess whether there are very special circumstances which justify the grant of planning permission notwithstanding the particular importance of the green belt.
Director Duties
May 19th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Capital Finance and CompaniesA fiduciary, such as a company director, must not act in a position where his interest and his duty conflict or may possibly conflict. An exception is when there is fully informed consent, the burden of proving which is upon the fiduciary. As to informed consent, including implied consent, see John Reader v Spie Ltd (2021) EWHC 1221 (QB), in the context of an enhanced bonus on a TUPE transfer.
Child Protection
May 19th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality DutyEven in relation to child protection and safeguarding,, the European Convention of Human Rights does not give rise to any exception to the immunity of members of a diplomatic mission where their children are concerned. Diplomatic privilege limits what a local authority can do and prevents a Court from acting. So held in Barnet LBC v AG (2021) EWHC 1253 (Fam) by a Divisional Court.
Neighbourhood Development Plans and Orders
May 14th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Planning and EnvironmentalIn Fylde Coast Farms v Fylde BC (2021) UKSC 18 the Supreme Court considers administrative processes comprising a series of successive steps, seven in the case of the above. The challenge under Section 61N of TCPA 1990 was out of time.
Liability for Rates
May 14th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Council Tax and RatesHurstwood Properties v Rossendale BC (2021) UKSC 16 relates to the attempted avoidance of liabilities for business rates on unoccupied properties. The Supreme Court concludes (para 49) that the persons entitled to possession of an unoccupied property on whom the liability for rates is imposed does not encompass a company “which has no real or practical ability to exercise its legal right to possession” and “:on which that legal right has been conferred for no purpose other than the avoidance of liability for rates.”
Public Access to Meetings
May 4th, 2021 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and ContractsLast week as already noted in this Bulletin a Divisional Court held that a meeting under the Local Government Act 1972 must take place at a single, specified geographical location, that attending a meeting involves physically going to it, and that being present at such a meeting involves physical presence at the location. This week the Court gives a further Judgment, (2021) EWHC 1145 (Admin), in the same case, on public access to meetings which are required to be held in public or open to the public. The Court holds, at para 6, that members of the public must be admitted in person to the place where the meeting is being held, and, at para 8, that the mode by which the public is to have access is by physical attendance at the meeting.