Friends of Finsbury Park v Haringey London Borough Council

A local authority may rely on its statutory powers to close part of a public park where the proposed action falls within the relevant statutory power. Lawful consultation is required, but alleged procedural breaches will not justify relief where the court is highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different. A decision is not necessarily a key decision merely because it generates income which contributes to a local authority’s budget. Relevant operational policies may be superseded by later policies allocating matters, such as attendance limits, to a licensing process.

Friends of Finsbury Park challenged Haringey London Borough Council’s proposal to close part of Finsbury Park. The challenge concerned the Council’s statutory power to act, the adequacy of consultation, whether the decision was a key decision, compliance with recording and disclosure requirements, and whether relevant policy considerations had been taken into account. The claim was heard urgently as a rolled-up hearing. The central issues were whether the Council had acted lawfully and, if procedural breaches occurred, whether they justified relief.

1. Permission and statutory power. Permission was granted on all four grounds. Ground 3 was considered first. The Council was entitled to act as proposed under Local Government Act 1972, section 145.
2. Consultation. The consultation was adequate and lawful. Ground 1 therefore failed.
3. Key decision. The decision was not a key decision. Although it would generate income assisting the Council’s parks budget, it was not likely to result in significant savings within the meaning of the 2012 Regulations.
4. Recording and disclosure. There had been breaches of the 2012 Regulations and the Council’s Constitution concerning recording the decision and making documents available. Applying section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the court was highly likely that the outcome would not have been substantially different if the complained-of conduct had not occurred.
5. Relevant considerations and policy. The Council had not failed to consider the attendance limit in its 2002 policy. That policy had been superseded by the Council’s outdoor events policy, under which attendance numbers were to be determined through the licensing process, as occurred here. In any event, if the conclusions on grounds 1 and 4 were wrong, the same section 31(2A) test would prevent relief because the outcome would highly likely have been unchanged.
6. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. Ancillary applications were left until fuller written reasons were provided.