The Upper Tribunal (Fancourt J presiding) has in judicial review proceedings restated the principles for a claimant establishing or a defendant resiling from a legitimate expectation potentially established by published guidance from a public authority, as follows, in R (Vacation Rentals (UK) Ltd v HMRC), (2018) UKUT 383 (TCC):-
(1) The principle that substantive as well as procedural legitimate expectation should be protected is now well established as a ground for judicial review: Read more »
The appeal in Dill v SoS for CLG and Stratford-on-Avon District Council (2018) EWCA Civ 2619 gave rise to issues relating to the scope of what is meant by “listed building” under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (“the Listed Buildings Act”); and, in the event of dispute, who determines whether something is a “listed building”. The issues arose in relation to two early 18th century limestone piers, each surmounted by a lead urn of the same era. In 1973, the items were moved to a Grade II listed building. In 1986, each of the items was separately Grade II listed. They were subsequently disposed of. The fact that they
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 Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/1207 amend the Local Authorities (Capital Finance and Accounting) (England) Regulations 2003 (the “2003 Regulations”). Regulation 3 amends regulation 23 of the 2003 Regulations in order to allow a local authority to use capital receipts to make a payment to an employee or officer under new regulation 30AA. Regulation 4 inserts a new regulation 30AA into the 2003 Regulations.
MHCLG is consulting on a proposal for the Secretary of State to make a Localism Order under the Localism Act 2011. This is in order to enable Harrogate BC to use GPOC, subject to Parliamentary approval, to host the race finish line for the 2019 UCI Road World Championships on a specific part of the Harrrogate Stray by, for the specific purpose of the Championships, temporarily lifting restrictions in the Harrogate Stray Act 1985. That is a private Act of Parliament. It makes provision for the management by the Council of the Stray. It restricts the Council’s flexibility to act, notwithstanding the significant social and economic benefits to the region that are expected from the event. The Order would follow two previous similar Orders.
In R (Sefton MBC) v Highways England (2018) EWHC 3059 (Admin) Kerr J dismissed an application for judicial review by Sefton Council and held that Highways England, when considering options for a new link road, to improve access to the Port of Liverpool, were not acting unlawfully by declining to include in their consultation on their preferred option of an access road through a country park the alternative option of a tunnel. There was no procedural unfairness in dismissing the tunnel option, and excluding it from the consultation, on grounds of expense.
There was no legitimate expectation to the contrary. Highways England was entitled to limit the parameters of its consultation in the way that it did; and the consultation was, in the Court’s determination, fairly conducted. What fairness requires is fact sensitive. Consultees remained free to advocate so-called “dismissed” options and bring them back to centre stage.
Fairness does not require time and public money to be spent on a proposal costing substantially more than the allocated budget for the project would bear. Indeed the arguments that the tunnel should not be regarded as unaffordable, that alternative claims on public funds should be given a lower priority, and that the budget should be revised upwards, are political arguments, for government, not a matter for the Courts. There were appropriate processes available to consider environmental issues, including the processes with respect to a Development Consent Order.
A development agreement is entered into by a local authority land owner with a private contractor (St Modwen). There has been a competitive process. That complies with the Council’s duty to obtain “best consideration” on a land disposal, pursuant to its duty under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 (and its “best value” duty). A challenge to its compliance with the Section 123 duty fails, at first instance, and is not pursued on appeal. However, there had been no procurement process, as would be required, not for a land transaction, or transaction whose “main object” was a land transaction, but for a public works contract. A challenge in this respect also failed at first instance, but has been pursued on appeal.
The Government has announced that it intends to:-
There will be no override for the expected loss model or for the extra disclosures that the new standard requires. Read more »