Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
The Park
Tags for Forum Posts: appeal, court, finsbury, finsbury park, finsbury park events, of, park, ruling"
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
They’re two different things so it’s understandably confusing .
The November 2017 ruling was about if it was lawful for Haringey to allow large scale events in the park and it was ruled that it was lawful. Having failed with that challenge solititor’s acting in behalf of FoFP are now trying to use a bit of legislation from 1906 to force Haringey, and by default other local authorities who will be watching this, to allow income generated from FP events to be spent only on FP (and perhaps retrospective income). The relevant bit of the solicitor’s letter to LBH is
“As noted by Lang J in Muir, it would be an improper application of income generated from a park held in trust under the 1906 Act to use that income for any purpose but the maintenance and improvement of that park. In the case of Finsbury Park it is clear that not only has income generated by Finsbury Park been used for purposes other than maintaining and improving Finsbury Park in breach of the statutory trust, but it is the policy of your Council to do this. In the circumstances, we request the following:
1. that by close of business on 15 March 2018 you please account for all the monies that have been generated by Finsbury Park and how these monies have been expended;
2. you confirm that your will amend your Council’s policy forthwith to confirm that monies generated by Finsbury Park will only be used for the purposes of maintaining and improving Finsbury Park. ”
The letter was sent back in February I think and as far as I know there’s no response from LBH. I suppose they are deciding if they will accept the argument in the solicitor’s letter or refute it, possibly ending up back in court again.
Local authorities talk to one another and the outcome of this will be taken into account by all of them when they decide on using event income.
-
-
The law has been there since 1906 so can still be used.
I do wonder if this bit of legislation was enacted to deal with a specific issue (Sefton Park is mentioned) and then promptly ignored and never repealed or superseded as so many knee jerk laws are. The problem is if Haringey acquiesce other local authorities will be minded to do the same to avoid falling foul. The case will be followed by the legal teams in all local authorities who would then be called on to assess the legality of the use of event income in similar circumstances.
Local authorities are by nature risk averse beasts and erring on the side of caution would be very appealing.
It is being followed in the “trade” press
http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content...
-
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
I see nothing in that linked article that says income from events in Finsbury Park must be ring fenced for use in that park only. Where did this point come from?
-
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
It's confusing because the Enfield Independent said
"A ruling by the Court of Appeal in November last year means money raised from events in Finsbury Park cannot be spent elsewhere."
and
"the Court of Appeal ruling recognised that, under the Open Spaces Act 1906, money raised by the council from the hire of Finsbury Park can only be spent on Finsbury Park."
From what you say, Michael, that sounds wholly inaccurate.
-
-
Thanks for the reference. I've found the letter to which you referred and have attached it below. From it, I see that the Muir case was a recent one concerning Wandsworth Council:
R (Muir) v Wandsworth Borough Council [2017]:
“In the light of the observations in the Brockwell Park and Liverpool cases to the effect that the local authority, as trustee, could not lawfully make a profit from land held under the OSA 1906, the Council conceded that it could not properly use any rent paid by the IP for its general purposes; it could only be used for the purpose of improving or maintaining the Common. In its written evidence and skeleton argument in these proceedings, the Council had stated it intended to use only 30% of any rent received from the IP for the purpose of improving and maintaining the Common, but it withdrew that statement during the hearing."
So, it looks like a bit of a misunderstanding from the Indy, but they're apparently picking up on something that could be a sound basis for a legal challenge.
- Attachments:
-
-
Letter-Council.pdf, 247 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by DTW on
-
So I’m looking at this and thinking if I’m the council I’m just going to spend the money on parks as I see fit. If they want to challenge on a peice of legislation from 1906 then fine.
Its one of those cases where the courts are likely to want to make legislature to tidy up statutes in the past
-
-
Permalink Reply by Neville Collins on
-
Haringey Council should not be allowed to continue treating our public parks as cash cows. They should be both properly funded... and properly managed. Finsbury should be a jewel in the crown, but like everything they do it goes wrong, and the park has been allowed to become run down. In my opinion, Haringey should be stripped of its role in managing the park and to be handed over to a charitable trust, coordinated by the parks' friends groups.
-
-
......and they’ll get money from? The problem Neville is that council spending has been decimated over the last decade and parks are at the bottom of the heap for every single English local authority when they have to make a choice between essential statutory services and everything else.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
