Maries, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Merton
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Property and Real Estate Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a judicial review of the local authority's decision to appropriate part of Dundonald Recreation Ground for school expansion and other purposes under section 122(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. The court upheld the authority's decision, affirming its powers and the lawfulness of the appropriation. The court found the authority had balanced the comparative needs effectively and that the land was legitimately no longer required for its current purpose.
Judgment
Mr Justice King:
This judgement has to be read along side the Judgement of the Court in the Judicial Review Claim involving the same parties under number CO/814/2014.
This claim seeks to challenge the lawfulness of the defendant’s decision of June 2013 to lock entrances to the bowling green area on the Dundonald Recreation Ground and to erect two signs on the perimeter of the bowling green area and on the perimeter of the tennis court area, purportedly informing the public that the bowling facility had now closed and any use of the Green for bowling was not permitted, and the courts were only available to the public outside school operating hours.
This claim came before me pursuant to the Order of Lang J of 3 rd April 2014 (hearing 28 th March 2014) as a rolled up hearing with the issue of permission to be determined first, with the substantive hearing to follow if permission be granted. Immediately before the hearing of this claim the court heard the claim under CO/814/2014. That claim involved a challenge to the lawfulness of the defendant’s appropriation under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 of the very same land upon which the bowling green and tennis courts in question stood and in particular challenged the lawfulness of the determination that the land was no longer required for the purposes for which it was currently held as a recreation ground open space/public pleasure ground.
It was agreed between the parties that if the challenge to the appropriation failed then this claim became academic. This is because the basis of this challenge is that the challenged actions/decision of the defendant were contrary to and out with its powers under the byelaws made under the Public Heath Act 1875 and the Open Spaces Act 1906 which governed the use to which the land could be put by the defendant. The effect of appropriation was however to remove the land in question from the scope of the byelaws and to enable the defendant to use it instead for other purposes to facilitate the expansion of the adjacent Dundonald Primary School. Since the appropriation, the defendant has in March 2013 entered into a Community Use Agreement with the School regulating the School’s exclusive use of the tennis courts and providing for Community Public Use outside school hours, and further has granted a Licence to the School granting it exclusive use of the tennis courts during defined school hours. By amended Grounds of Claim the claimant in this claim has