Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE
Between:
FRIENDS OF FINSBURY PARK
Appellant
v
HARINGEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
Respondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Limited
Trading as DTI
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R Harwood QC (instructed by Harrison Grant Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr P Kolvin QC (instructed by the London Borough of Haringey) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Mr R McCracken QC (instructed by PBC, licensing solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: This is an urgent rolled up hearing. Due to the urgency, I have been asked to give my decision at the conclusion of the hearing, which I now do, with reasons in summary form. Fuller written reasons will be provided in due course. This application is arguable, and I grant permission on all grounds. There are 4 grounds of challenge. Logically, ground 3 which is a challenge to the Council's legal powers to close part of the park, should be considered first. I am satisfied that the Council is entitled to act as proposed pursuant to section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972. I am also satisfied that there was adequate consultation. The consultation was, in my judgment, lawful (ground 1).
As for ground 2, two issues arise: first whether this was a key decision. It was not. It was not one likely to result in the Council making significant savings within the meaning of the Regulations. It results in the Council earning an income which will help the Council meet its parks budget, but this does not mean that the decision is a key decision. The second issue is as to whether the Council failed to record the decision and to make certain documents available as required by the 2012 Regulations and the Council's Constitution. There were breaches of the Regulations and the Constitution. But I am satisfied, having regard to section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, that it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. I reject the contention that the Council failed to have regard to relevant consideration, namely the limit on numbers in the 2002 policy. That policy was superseded by the Council's outdoor events policy which provided that attendance numbers were to be decided as part of the licensing process, as they were in this case. If I am wrong about grounds 1 and 4, I am of the view, again having regard to section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act, that it is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred. Accordingly, for the reasons I have given, this claim is dismissed.
MR KOLVIN: My Lord, I am grateful. I am not sure whether any consequential applications have to be made now or whether we ought to wait.
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: I think not. I think that unless there is any urgent application that anyone wishes to make, then ancillary applications should be made when I have provided fuller written reasons, which I will do in due course.
MR KOLVIN: My Lord, we are very happy with that; thank you so much.
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: As I indicated a short while ago, if there is any further document that counsel can agree and put before me with regard to the factual position relating to the site, then I will be happy to receive it.
MR KOLVIN: My Lord, thank you so much for having taken this urgently and delivered the judgment at this stage. It will obviously come as a great help to everybody involved.
MR JUSTICE SUPPERSTONE: Thank you. I am very grateful to all counsel for their very clear and helpful submissions.