In R (on the application of Harris) v Broads Authority [2016] EWHC 799 (Admin), the residents of the Broads applied for judicial review of a resolution by the Broads Authority to rebrand the area as “The Broads National Park” for the purposes of attracting tourists.
The residents submitted that the Broads Authority’s resolution was:
(1) Irrational and invalid because it was outside the scope of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 and because it attributed to the Broads a statutory term which could only be employed for areas statutorily designated as National Parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949;
(2) Misleading as to the scope of the Broads Authority’s statutory functions because it led the public into thinking that the Sandford Principle was applicable within the Broads when it was not; and
(3) Procedurally unfair because it involved a decision not to pursue the long term vision of the Broads Plan 2011 to become a National Park (and thereby adopt the Sandford Principle) without any consultation on that point.
The application for judicial review was refused. It was held that the Broads Authority had been entitled to re-brand “the Broads” as “the Broads National Park” without changing the legal status of the area and without becoming subject to the legal duties imposed upon National Parks by the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Broads Authority’s resolution did not breach the legislation as it was not seeking to treat the Broads as a National Park, it instead was only adopting the name for marketing purposes (i.e. as a brand name). Further the usage of the words “National Park” does not belong exclusively to the statutory code for National Parks in the UK (ie a “National Park” does not only refer to an area designated as such under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949).
Also, as the Broads Authority was only adopting the “National Parks” wording as a brand name, and the legal regime within the Broads remained unaltered, the resolution was only concerned with how the Broads should be marketed. As such it had not been necessary for the Broads Authority to decide about the introduction of the Sandford Principle. Lastly, the Broads Plan 2011 did not seek to promote the adoption of the Sandford Principle. The Broads Authority’s resolution was essentially concerned with a decision on branding which did not depend upon whether the Sandford Principle should be adopted (whether now or in the future). Mr Justice Holgate further commented that the residents were unable to show that the consultation process carried out in this case went clearly and radically wrong.
Martha Grekos is a partner and head of planning at Irwin Mitchell
