Ramsgate Town Council v Thanet District Council

Land held for allotment purposes ceases to have that designated status when the Secretary of State consents under Allotments Act 1925 to its release for other uses, subject to any conditions imposed. An appropriation under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires no particular statutory formality. It is ordinarily effective when the local authority formally records its intention to change the land’s use and obtains the necessary consent. Actual sale or redevelopment is unnecessary unless the consent makes it a condition of release.

The claimant town council was created on 1 April 2009 following the reorganisation of local government in Thanet. Under regulation 9 of the Local Government (Parishes and Parish Councils) (England) Regulations 2008, land held by the defendant for allotment purposes immediately before that date would transfer to and vest in the claimant.

The land had formerly been allotment land but had fallen into disuse. In 2006 the defendant obtained the Secretary of State’s consent under section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 to its disposal, after demonstrating that it was surplus to allotment requirements. The claimant argued that the land remained allotment land until an actual disposal occurred. The central issue was whether the land was still held for allotment purposes on 1 April 2009.

1. The claim was dismissed and the declaration was refused. The land was not held by the defendant for allotment purposes on 1 April 2009.
2. Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 provided the clearest route to that conclusion. The Secretary of State’s consent released the land from its designated allotment use on 26 September 2006. The consent was not conditioned on continued allotment use until a later sale.
3. The statutory protection was directed principally to actual and potential allotment holders, rather than to preserving the status of land as allotment land indefinitely. Section 32(2) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 protected those interests by regulating the use of sale proceeds.
4. Alternatively, the defendant had effectively appropriated the land to another use under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972. No particular statutory formalities were required. The defendant had formally recorded its intention to treat the land as surplus, sought the necessary consent, and received it. The appropriation therefore became effective when consent was given.
5. As a further alternative, the defendant’s formal decision to sell the land on 18 September 2008 would have been sufficient before the critical date. The consent also permitted delayed sale and interim agricultural use, and did not require the land to remain designated for allotments pending a final development decision.