JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
The matter that depended on the court decision was about the case in that involved village green. The field was available for the public for more than 50 years. Basing on the Commons Act 2006[1], land that is used for formal recreation for at least 20 years can be put under registration as green. Therefore the land will be protected from development. The move by Moorside to register the lands under the Commons Act 2016, meant that many people would continue using the lands for recreational purposes. Hence if the case[2] against the registration was to be granted, then many people would continue benefiting from the fields as a recreational place. In the occurrence, the decision would be denied then; people would not benefit from the fields in the future as a recreation place. If the court decided to reject the registration of the field as green, the local authority would be able to do the future expansion of the Moorside Primary School’s playing field. Therefore, the students in the school will be able to benefit from the development of the field. The school will also benefit the expansion of the fields. If the supreme courts deny the application of the local authority, then it means the most affected people by the decision will be the children from the Moorside Primary School, since they will not be able to benefit from the expansion of the field. The school, in general, will also be unable to do future expansions. The local authority will also lose power over the lands. In the same case, the National Health Service was also at risk of losing it land[3]. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
The legal issue is about the Village green, and the county council had appealed the ruling of over the village green by the Court of Appeal. It had ruled that the registration of the land as a village green could proceed. The council had failed about the same issue in the High Court that that forced them to move to the Court of Appeal where they failed, and that is the reason they moved to the Supreme Court. The court was also supposed to give a ruling against the registration of a separate case in Surrey, and the case involved a 2.9-hectare Leach Grove wood at Leatherhead, the National Health Service owned the land. It was after an application was made to register the site as a green, basing the factor the land was on use over 20 years. An inspector rejected the registration but the registration authority Surrey County Council (“SCC”), did not accept this and registered the land. The Supreme Court was supposed to give a decision of whether the lands owned by the public authorities by their statutory power were open for development for any purpose that they had and deemed to be appropriate. On the legal issue, their judgement was to base on the Commons Act 2006, that land used for at least 20 years can be registered as a green and protected from the development. The court was also supposed to base on the Growth and Infrastructure Act of 2013[4], Which specified that land that is designated for planning application could not be registered as a village green.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in both cases, by a majority. In the judgement, Lord Carnwath and Lord Sales gave the majority judgement that was agreed upon by Lady Black. A partly dissenting judgement was given by Lady Arden, while Lord Wilson judgement was dissenting.
The majority judgement showed that, the inspector’s findings in the Lancaster case[5] and his decision was inconsistent and lacking enough evidence to back up the decision[6]. Hence, the main issue in both the cases that were under the appeal was to have an interpretation and application of the statutory purposes. The opinion of the majority interpreted the Act that where land is acquired and held for define statutory purposes by the public authority, then the Act doesn’t give the public the authority over the land through registering it as green. It is because the registration will be incompatible with the statutory purposes[7]. Therefore, where there exists incompatibility between the statutory purposes and the use of land as green, the Act is not applicable[8]. The majority also argued the test set out in Newhaven[9] is not whether the land has been allotted via statute for specific purposes, however rather whether it has been received with the aid of the public authority according to its statutory powers and is held for the functions of these powers, wherein those functions are incompatible with the registration of the land as a green. The creation of the act is unsurprising; there is no indication that the general provisions within the act regarding registration as green had been meant to have the effect of stopping use of land held by using a public authority for unique public functions defined in the statute.
In their application of the Act as interpreted in Newhaven, there is a statutory incompatibility in the case of LCC and NHS. In the case of Lancaster, the rights the pursuant claim to have over the registration of the land as green are incompatible with the use of such areas for purposes like education. Hence, using them as playing fields and for school buildings construction. The judgement also insisted that there was no need for LCC to show that the lands were currently being used, but they are held for statutory purposes[10]. The same application was referred to the Surrey case, and that is incompatibility should always be referred to the statutory purposes of the land and not based on the manner which the land is being used in a particular time[11].
Lady Arden disagreed with the reasoning of the majority judgement. She argued that land the issue of public authority holding land for statutory purposes that are incompatible with the land utilization, doesn’t give sufficient reason for the land to no be registered. She also argued that the land must be shown as being reasonably foreseeable. Therefore it will be used under those power in the manner in which it will not affect the right of the public in registering the lands as green. According to the dissent from Lord Wilson from the majority, he would have dismissed both appeals. He believes that the Act’s[12] reach is substantially reduced if the lands that are held by public authorities for specified statutory purposes can be not be registered as green, and they are incompatible with those purposes. Regarding the Newhaven statue, the present cases are contrast, hence involving statutory provisions that confer general powers to acquire and hold land that is unspecified for purposes of education and health. Hence, they cannot be assumed to be incompatible with the Act.
The judgment that provides a more satisfactory resolution to the litigation is from Lord Wilson. I would align with his decision of dismissing both of the appeals. It will work according to the Commons Act 2006, land that is used for formal recreation for at least 20 years can be put under registration as green. Therefore the land will be protected from development. The land under question in Moorside had been used for more than 50 years for recreational purposes. Hence, according to the low, the people of that area have the full rights of making sure that the land is registered as green land. LCC has a good purpose of the land, using the land in future to expand the fields of Moorside Primary School, hence enabling the school to have playing fields and construction of school buildings. It will help the education of the children in the area, but that should not be the reason to go against the law. Avoiding to follow the Act, portrays an authority that is ignorant in making sure the law is up to the task. The Growth and Infrastructure Act of 2013, which specified that land that is designated for planning application could not be registered as a village green, cannot be implemented in this case, since the act can only be used if and only if the land has been used for recreational purposes for less than 20 years. On the second appeal that concerns Leach Grove Wood in Leatherhead owned by NHS Property Services Ltd (“the NHS”). The case where an application that was made to register the site as green land for being used for over 20 years was accepted after the inspector had sent the recommendation for the refusal of the registration. From my point of view, the registration should have been upheld because the Surrey County Council (“SCC”) based their registration on the Act. Therefore the Supreme Court going against that decision meant they were going against the right of the public, which is well established and illustrated in the Commons Act 2006, land that is used for formal recreation for at least 20 years can be put under registration as green. Therefore the land will be protected from development.
It is correct according to Lord Wilson the Act’s reach is substantially reduced if in the cases where land that is held by public authorities for specified purposes is to be protected from being registered as a green, that can be theoretically incompatible with those purposes[13]. There is a need for the law to be applied in an equal measure no making decision basing on arguments that do have concrete evidence from the law. The majority judges relied on Newhaven[14], but it was concerned only with specific duties in relation to a particular land. Hence, the particular duties in Newhaven were incompatible with the genal provision in the Act. The use of the lands in education and health purposes cannot be linked to being incompatible to the Act basing on the argument. Generally, the judgement by the majority demeaned Commons Act 2006, therefore, denying the public to register the lands as a green. It can be technically said, and it went against the act that was set to protect the recreational space of the citizens.
[1] Commons Act 2006 2006 s 15(1)
[2] Lancashire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ 2019] 1 (UKSC)
[3] NHS Property Services Ltd v Surrey County Council [ 2019] 1 (UKSC)
[4] Growth and Infrastructure Act of 2013 2013 s 15(3) (c)
[5] Lancashire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ 2019] 1 (UKSC)
[6] Lancashire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ 2019] 1 (UKSC) [33]-[34]
[7] Lancashire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ 2019] 1 (UKSC) [48]
[8] Lancashire County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [ 2019] 1 (UKSC) [55]
[9] (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2015] UKSC 7
[10] NHS Property Services Ltd v Surrey County Council [ 2019] 1 (UKSC) [65]
[11] NHS Property Services Ltd v Surrey County Council [ 2019] 1 (UKSC) [66]
[12] Commons Act 2006 2006 s 15(1) (Lady Arden)
[13] Commons Act 2006 2006 s 15(1) (Lord Wilson)
[14] (Newhaven Port & Properties Ltd) v East Sussex County Council [2015] UKSC 7 (Lord Wilson)