(1)The land comprised in the site of the central garden of Parliament Square (which, at the passing of this Act, is vested in the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport) is by this subsection transferred to and vested in Her Majesty as part of the hereditary possessions and revenues of Her Majesty.
(2)Nothing in subsection (1) above affects—
(a)any sewers, cables, mains, pipes or other apparatus under that site, or
(b)any interest which was, immediately before the passing of this Act, vested in London Regional Transport or any of its subsidiaries.
(3)The care, control, management and regulation of the central garden of Parliament Square shall be functions of the Authority.
(4)It shall be the duty of the Authority well and sufficiently to light, cleanse, water, pave, repair and keep in good order and condition the central garden of Parliament Square.
(5)The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by this section are in addition to any other functions of the Authority.
(6)In consequence of the preceding provisions of this section, any functions of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851 (duties and powers of management in relation to the royal parks, gardens and possessions there mentioned), so far as relating to the whole or any part of the central garden of Parliament Square, shall determine.
(7)Subsections (3) and (4) above shall have effect notwithstanding any law, statute, custom or usage to the contrary.
(8)Any functions conferred or imposed on the Authority by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.
(9) In this section “the central garden of Parliament Square” means the site in Parliament Square on which the Minister of Works was authorised by the Parliament Square (Improvement) Act 1949 to lay out the garden referred to in that Act as “the new central garden”.
Cases considering section 384 3
[2010] EWCA Civ 817 · 16 July 2010Interprets
The provision vests bare legal title to Parliament Square Gardens in the Crown. Read with the Mayor’s extensive statutory functions, it does not prevent the Mayor from enforcing the right to possession in his own name (see paras [25]; [29]; [33]).
The care, control, management and regulation conferred on the Authority form part of the complete possessory control vested in the Mayor. The provision supports his implied standing to recover possession (see paras [21]; [28]–[33]).
The statutory maintenance duty contributes to the Mayor’s right and obligation to control the Gardens and enforce possession in his own name (see paras [21]; [29]–[33]).
The termination of the Secretary of State’s former management functions supported the conclusion that Parliament did not contemplate possession proceedings being brought in the Crown’s name rather than by the Mayor (see paras [34]–[35]).
The Authority’s functions concerning Parliament Square Gardens are exercisable by the Mayor acting on its behalf. The Court accordingly treated the relevant powers and duties as conferred on the Mayor (see paras [21]; [28]–[33]).
[2015] EWHC 3584 (Admin) · 18 December 2015Interprets
Interpreted as vesting the care, control, management and regulation of Parliament Square Gardens in the GLA. The statutory functions were broad enough to include regulating access and maintaining security, not merely maintaining the physical condition of the Gardens (see paras [4], [83]–[84]).
Applied as conferring broad functions of care, control, management and regulation over Parliament Square Gardens. Those functions authorised regulation of use and access (see paras [4], [83]).
[2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) · 29 June 2010Interprets
The statutory allocation of care, control, management and regulation of Parliament Square Gardens to the Authority conferred effective control sufficient to support a right to possession against unauthorised occupiers. (see paras [84],[101])
The duty to keep the Gardens in good order supported refusal of permission for an encampment causing substantial damage and supported the proportionality of seeking possession. (see paras [131]-[133])
The provision requiring the functions to operate notwithstanding contrary law, statute, custom or usage was construed as supporting the unfettered exercise of the Authority’s management functions, subject to reasonableness and Convention compliance. (see para [101])
The provision confirmed that the functions under section 384 were exercisable by the Mayor acting for the Authority. It supported the Mayor’s standing to seek possession. (see para [101])
What each judgment says about section 384 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.