The question at the heart of this matter is what is 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 described Thanet’s case: ‘[Thanet’s] case is simply that in 2006 (a) the Land had not been used for allotment purposes for some time, (b) [Thanet] had decided it was surplus to requirements, (c) [Thanet] 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, the Land was not held as allotment land, but was simply held pending sale. Alternatively, 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 [Thanet] formally decided to sell, in 2008, and thus appropriated the land to be held for sale, as it was permitted to do given the 2006 Consent.’
Held: The defendant’s case succeeded. Once the Secretary of State had given consent to the disposal of the land, it was no longer held for allotment purposes (even though it continued to be used for that purpose).
Thanet had obtained the consent of the Secretary of State as required by section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925. She continued: ‘Since there are no statutory formalities required for an effective appropriation, such an appropriation ought sensibly to be regarded as having been made when [Thanet] put on formal record its intention to behave henceforth in a particular way, and seeks the necessary consents to enable it to do so legitimately. Once those consents have been received, the appropriation of the Land to another use is effective unless the imposed conditions make other provision, e.g. for continued use as allotment land for a further period before the consent to another use is effective. There were no such conditions imposed in this case, so the appropriation to another use occurred, on this analysis, on 26 September 2006 when the Secretary of State gave consent to alternative use of the Land.’
Judges:
Sarah Worthington QC
Citations:
[2018] EWHC 3042 (Ch)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Adamson, Regina (on The Application of) v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council CA 18-Feb-2020
Appropriation was not in sufficient form
The claimants had challenged an order supporting the decision of the Council to use their allotments for a new primary school, saying that the land had be appropriated as allotment land, and that therefore the consent of the minister was needed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Planning
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.628964
