District council wins High Court battle over ownership of former allotment land
A Deputy High Court judge has decided in favour of a district council that certain land was no longer held as allotment land and therefore not transferred to a town council when the latter was created.
Sarah Worthington QC (Hon) said that the question at the heart of Ramsgate Town Council v Thanet District Council [2018] EWHC 3042 was what was needed to constitute an effective appropriation of land from one designated use to another, and in particular from designated use as allotment land to land able to be used for other purposes.
The judge said that the answer was crucial, because it determined whether the land in question at Manston Road, Ramsgate, Kent, CT12 6AY was legally owned by the claimant town council or by the defendant district council.
The question arose as a result of the reorganisation of the District of Thanet and the creation of the town council. Ramsgate Town Council was formally constituted on 1 April 2009 under article 1(2) of District of Thanet (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2009.
One of its new functions related to the maintenance of allotments under a body of legislation commonly referred to as "the Allotments Acts 1908-1950". Those functions were previously exercised by the district council.
Pursuant to regulation 9 of the Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008, any land held by Thanet on 1 April 2009 for allotment functions would automatically be transferred to and vest in the claimant.
The judge said that both parties agreed that if this land was held by the defendant for allotment purposes on 1 April 2009, then the claimant was entitled to a declaration that the land transferred to and vested in the claimant pursuant to regulation 9 of the 2008 Regulations.
If this land was not held by the defendant for allotment purposes on 1 April 2009, then the claimant's claim would fail.
Thanet’s case was that in 2006:
(a) the land had not been used for allotment purposes for some time,
(b) it had decided it was surplus to requirements,
(c) it had formally sought the Secretary of State's consent to sale on the basis that it was surplus, and
(d) the Secretary of State accepted that the land was surplus and gave consent.
Thereafter, Thanet argued, the land was not held as allotment land, but was simply held pending sale.
Alternatively, it argued that if the Secretary of State's consent was not sufficient to change the basis on which the land was held, then the status changed when the defendant formally decided to sell, in 2008, and thus appropriated the land to be held for sale, as it was permitted to do given a 2006 consent. In either case, regulation 9 of the 2008 Regulations did not apply to the land in 2009.
Ramsgate Town Council’s case, by contrast, was that the Secretary of State has given consent to disposal of the land (and not to any other of the possible consents indicated in section 8 of the 1925 Act), and that, until such active disposal by way of sale, the land continued to be held as allotment land. Since such a disposal did not take place until 2017, regulation 9 of the 2008 Regulations did apply to the land in 2009, the town council suggested.
The Deputy High Court judge said that given the relevant law and the substantially uncontested facts, the claim “would seem amenable to disposal in relatively short order, perhaps in a number of different ways but all leading to the same conclusion”.
She concluded: “I find that the land was not held by the defendant for allotment purposes on 1 April 2009, and I therefore dismiss the claim and refuse the declaration sought by the claimant.”
