Harris & Anor, R (on the application of) v Broads Authority

The claimants sought judicial review of a resolution of the Broads Authority (23 January 2015) adopting the brand "Broads National Park" for marketing purposes. The court considered three principal grounds: (1) whether the choice of brand was ultra vires or otherwise unlawful because it adopted a statutory term associated with National Parks and might import the Sandford Principle (section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949); (2) whether the Authority relied on an immaterial consideration (the protections of the Habitats Regulations 2010) in deciding not to adopt the Sandford Principle; and (3) whether the consultation was procedurally unfair by failing to consult on dropping the Broads Plan's long-term vision of statutory National Park status.

The court held that the Authority was empowered under section 2 of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to adopt a marketing brand, that use of the ordinary-language phrase "national park" for branding did not amount to an implied statutory prohibition or to misleading use in the circumstances, and that the Authority made clear it did not seek to change the Broads' legal status or to apply the Sandford Principle. The court also rejected challenges based on reliance on the Habitats Regulations and on alleged consultation defects, concluding there was no material unfairness or illegality warranting relief.

This is a first-instance judicial review claim challenging the Broads Authority's decision to adopt the brand name "Broads National Park" for marketing-related purposes. The claimants, local landowners and environmental campaigners, sought quashing relief on three principal grounds: (i) that the adoption of a name associated in statute with National Parks was ultra vires and/or unlawful because it risked importing the Sandford Principle (section 11A(2) of the 1949 Act); (ii) that the Authority had wrongly relied on the Habitats Regulations 2010 as a reason not to adopt the Sandford Principle; and (iii) that the consultation process was procedurally unfair because consultees were not put on notice that the Authority might abandon the Broads Plan long-term vision of seeking statutory National Park status.

The court framed the legal issues as: (1) whether the Authority had power to use a brand name for marketing the Broads in pursuit of its statutory purposes under the 1988 Act and section 111 LGA 1972; (2) whether the statutory National Park code implied a prohibition on use of the words "national park" outside the 1949 Act designation process; (3) whether the branding decision objectively misled the public into thinking the Sandford Principle applied; (4) whether reliance on the Habitats Regulations was an immaterial consideration or irrational; and (5) whether the consultation omitted matters required by the common law duty of fairness.

The court's reasoning was:

• On vires and statutory language: the Authority had statutory powers to promote public understanding and enjoyment of the Broads and to take incidental steps (section 2 of the 1988 Act and section 111 LGA 1972). The phrase "national park" is ordinary-language as well as statutory terminology; there is no implied statutory monopoly preventing its use as a marketing brand and Parliament's statutory scheme did not imply such a prohibition.
• On misleading effect and the Sandford Principle: the Authority repeatedly and plainly stated that adoption of the brand would not change the legal status of the Broads or the Authority and that the Sandford Principle would not be applied; an objective test showed no reasonable member of the public would, from the brand alone, infer applicability of the Sandford Principle or confusion as to statutory functions.
• On the Habitats Regulations: the court held that the Authority's reference to the protections under the Habitats Regulations was not an immaterial consideration and, in any event, the decision to adopt a marketing brand did not require the Authority to resolve complex questions of legislative policy about importing the Sandford Principle into the Broads regime.
• On consultation: the Broads Plan, consultation documents and earlier minutes made clear the legal position and the limits of the branding proposal; the omission of prior consultation specifically on abandoning the long-term vision did not produce unfairness warranting quashing, particularly because any change to the Broads Plan itself would require separate statutory procedures.

The court dismissed the claim and ordered costs against the claimants, applying the Aarhus-related cost capping order previously made by Singh J.

The claim is dismissed. The court concluded that the Broads Authority acted within its powers in adopting the brand "Broads National Park" for marketing purposes under its statutory duties (Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 and section 111 LGA 1972), that the ordinary‑language use of "National Park" did not unlawfully usurp the statutory designation scheme nor objectively mislead the public into thinking the Sandford Principle applied, and that reliance on the Habitats Regulations and the consultation process did not render the decision unlawful.

Permission to apply for judicial review was renewed by Singh J (order dated 12 August 2015). No appeal history is recorded in this judgment.