Appellant local authority maintaining landfill site with negative equity value — Appellants and respondent local authority amalgamating responsibilities as result of section 17 of Local Government Act 1992 — Whether landfill site passing to respondents — Appeal allowed in part
The appellant local authority owned a landfill site, which, prior to 1994, they had used for the tipping of waste. Since 1994, they had been maintaining the site with a view to its restoration. The site had a substantial negative equity.
As a result of local government reorganisation, pursuant to section 17 of the Local Government Act 1992 and the Durham (Borough of Darlington)(Structural Change) Order 1995, the appellants and the respondents were amalgamated into a unitary authority, with the consequent reallocation of the appellants’ assets, rights and liabilities.
The appellants claimed, inter alia, that under regulation 5 of the Local Government Changes for England (Property Transfer and Transitional Payments) Regulations 1995, the landfill site, along with its substantial running costs, passed to, and became the responsibility of, the respondents, because it fell under the provisions of regulation 5(6)(b)(i), being within the stated area and “required by the acquiring authority for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of functions in or in relation to that area on and after the reorganisation date”. The respondents maintained that the land was surplus to either party’s requirements and that, since it was the responsibility of the appellant, as the “custodian authority” under regulation 10, it should therefore be sold off. The appellants contended that, under the terms of the regulations, such disposal could be carried out only “for a consideration” and, given that the site had a negative value, such a disposal was impossible. At first instance, the court found for the respondents.
Held: The appeal was allowed in part.
The test under regulation 5(6)(b)(i) was whether the acquiring authority required the property for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of functions in, or in relation to, its area on and after the reorganisation date. The function for which the property was required had to be specifically identified. At the time of the reorganisation, the landfill had been full and no waste-management licence had been required. The appellants had not been using the land for the disposal, treating or keeping of waste, but had been merely monitoring the site. On that basis, at the time of the reorganisation, the site could not have been used by the acquiring authority for the disposal of waste, and therefore fell outside the provisions of regulation 5. Accordingly, it remained the responsibility of the appellants, as custodian authority. They could dispose of the site, since, under regulation 10(1)(b), the Secretary of State could consent to disposal without consideration, or could order the custodian authority to restore the land to a saleable condition.
Timothy Straker QC and Murray Shanks (instructed by Dickinson Dees, of Stockton Tees) appeared for the appellants; Richard Drabble QC and Daniel Kolinsky (instructed by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
