Local Government Law

Search for:
Subscribe

Get an email when we publish a new post on this blog. We’ll never share your email and you can unsubscribe any time. Our use of your details is explained in our privacy policy.

"*" indicates required fields

Email*

First name*
Last name*

Δ
Headings
- Best Value (13)
- Capital Finance and Companies (60)
- Council Tax and Rates (87)
- Decision making and Contracts (291)
- Elections and Bylaws (36)
- Environment, Highways and Leisure (133)
- General (20)
- Housing (165)
- Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty (123)
- Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation (252)
- Land, Goods and Services (83)
- Local Authority Powers (75)
- Non Judicial Control (21)
- Planning and Environmental (191)
- Social Care (85)
- Standards (26)
Disclaimer

This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Consultation

July 12th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In R (LF) v Buckinghamshire County Council (2019) EWHC 1817 (Admin) a judicial review challenge failed to a decision by the Council, by its Cabinet, to close 19, and retain 16, of its Children’s Centres, whilst ensuring the continuing use of the closed Centres for early years and community benefit. Andrews J was satisfied that the Council had carried out a fair Consultation before Cabinet made its decision, that it took the responses properly into account, and that it complied with all its relevant statutory duties.

There was an obligation on the Council under Section 5D of the Childcare Act 2006 to “secure that such consultation as they think appropriate” was carried out before any change was made in the services to be provided through a Children’s Centre or before the closure of any such Centre. Andrews J said (paragraph 34) that gave the Council “a wide discretion as to what the consultation should comprise”, subject only to the requirements of statutory Guidance. Read more »

Neighbourhood Development Plans

July 10th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Planning and Environmental

Section 61N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is a bespoke and complete scheme for legal challenges to specified decisions and actions within the Neighbourhood Plan process. The Section is self-contained and comprehensive. It leaves no gaps. It provides for proceedings to be pursued before a Neighbourhood Plan is made. The six weeks’ time limit for challenging Neighbourhood Development Orders cannot be extended. Claims must be brought at the particular stage at which a grievance arises. So held in R (Oyston Estates Ltd) v Fylde Borough Council (2019) EWCA Civ 1152

Waste

July 9th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Environment, Highways and Leisure

The European Court Judgment in Case C-624/17, Tronex BV, concerns the concepts of “waste” and “shipment of waste”. The Court said:-

“16 Regarding the concept of ‘waste’, it should be borne in mind that Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98 defines it as any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard…

17 In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the classification of a substance or object as waste is to be inferred primarily from the holder’s actions and the meaning of the term ‘discard’… Read more »

Allocation

June 28th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

The decision in R (Z) v Hackney LBC, noted in this Bulletin on 6 February 2019, has been upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the allocation policy of the Agudas Israel Housing Association (“AIHA”) was permitted by Section 193(1) and Section 193(2)(b) of the Equality Act 2010: paragraph 62. A proportionality assessment was not required.

Executive Functions

June 26th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Decision making and Contracts

In Williams v Caerphilly County Borough Council (2019) EWHC 1618 (Admin) the Claimant challenged two decisions taken by the Council, which operates executive arrangements: a Cabinet decision to adopt a Sports and Active Recreation Strategy for 2019-2020 (“the Sports Strategy” and “the Strategy Decision”); and a further and later Cabinet decision to close a Leisure Centre (“the Closure Decision”).

As regards the Strategy Decision, the first ground of challenge was that the Strategy Decision was unlawful because it was taken by Cabinet, when it should have been taken by Full Council, pursuant to the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Functions and Responsibilities) (Wales) Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Regulations”). Read more »

Obtaining Injunction

June 20th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Local Authority Powers

Birmingham City Council v Afsar and Others (2019) EWHC 1560 (QB) is a case about a protest which has been carried on outside a primary school. Warby J granted interim injunctions, on the basis that the Council was likely to succeed at trial in showing that restraint on the way that protests were being conducted was justified.

The protest involved parents of pupils at the school, relatives of theirs, and other individuals opposed to some of the ways the school is teaching its pupils. It had been going on for a number of weeks. The focus of the protest has been the teaching of matters relating to sexual behaviour, sexuality, and gender.

Homelessness

June 14th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Housing

In Samuels v Birmingham City Council (2019) UKSC 28 the Supreme Court quashed the Council’s decision that Ms Samuels was intentionally homeless, on the ground that her accommodation was affordable and reasonable for her to continue to occupy, and that its loss was the result of her deliberate act in failing to pay the rent. The central issue was whether the Council adopted the correct approach in determining that the accommodation was “affordable” for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, Article 2 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996, and the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities. The Council was required to take into account all Ms Samuels’ sources of income, including all social security benefits, and to consider all her reasonable living expenses. The question ought to have been what her reasonable living expenses, other than rent, were. This should have been determined having regard to her needs and those of her children.

Inherent Likelihood of Illegality

June 12th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

In R (ZK) v Redbridge London Borough Council (2019) EWHC 1450 (Admin) Swift J held, at paragraph 37, that the existence of an unacceptable risk of illegality in the operation of a policy is capable of giving rise to a ground of judicial review challenge, whether or not the arrangements give rise to an unacceptable risk of unfairness. The principle (paragraph 38) is an applicable standard to judge substantive policies too.

Such capability is to be assessed (paragraph 39) “realistically and pragmatically”.

PSED

June 10th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Human Rights and Public Sector Equality Duty

In London and Quadrant Housing Trust v Patrick (2019) EWHC 1263 (QB) Turner J at paragraph 42 listed the factors which are likely, at least in many instances, to be the most relevant to be considered in the context of possession cases:-

Alleged Negligent Failure

June 7th, 2019 by James Goudie KC in Judicial Control, Liability and Litigation

The appeal to the Supreme Court in Poole Borough Council v GN (2019) UKSC 25, in which Judgment was given on 6 June 2019, was concerned with whether a local authority was liable for what was alleged to have been its negligent failure to exercise its social services functions so as to protect children from harm caused by third parties. The principal question of law raised was whether a local authority, or its employees, may owe a common law duty of care to children affected by the manner in which the authority exercises, or fails to exercise those functions, and, if so, in what circumstances.

Subscribe

Headings

Disclaimer