Bristol Downs car parking challenge success
R (Carter) v Bristol City Council & ors
Downs for People, a Bristol residents’ group set up to preserve the Clifton and Durdham Downs, challenged a 20-year licensing arrangement which would continue to allow Bristol Zoo and others to use 1.3ha of public open space as a temporary car park.
This judicial review by Ms Carter on behalf of residents challenged a complex licensing arrangement involving Bristol City Council (BCC) , the Society of Merchant Venturers and the Downs Committee to permit Bristol Zoo to use 1.3ha of the Downs, known as Ladies Mile, as an overflow carpark for up to 700 cars. At the heart of the case was the contention that car parking was in contravention of a Victorian bylaw, ‘the Clifton and Durdham Downs (Bristol) Act 1861’, which imposed a duty on the Downs Committee to keep the designated common land open and unenclosed.
All discussions related to the licensing arrangements had been conducted in private, with public access prevented. Minutes of meetings in which the sub-licences were granted had also not been made public. The claimant applied for disclosure and HHJ Cotter QC ordered key documents be disclosed, including the licences themselves which had not been made public, despite the live litigation.
Before the claim went to a substantive hearing, all parties to the claim agreed to discontinue it on the basis that the Defendants would not set aside, or make arrangements for, land on the Downs to be used for parking for non-Downs related activities. This affected not just the Ladies Mile Car Park, but also the North Car Park which was not the direct subject of the litigation. The enforcement of this provision was delayed until 1 October 2022 for the former, and 31 December 2023 for the latter, to coincide with the closure of the zoo.
BCC agreed to the payment of the majority of the Claimant’s costs.
Philip Petchey of Francis Taylor Building, was counsel for the Claimant.
- Order discontinuing claim
- Permission order
Share via
- Back to cases
Partner- Senior Solicitor
- Paralegal
Commentary
This is an important, but hard-fought decision where due to the dedication and perseverance of the Claimant, events that were held out of the public eye were finally considered and ultimately the licence agreements have been unravelled.
However, it was only after the commencement of Judicial Review proceedings, and subsequently a successful disclosure order, that the licences and related documentation which were the subject of the dispute were disclosed. As was remarked by the Judge in ordering the provision of the licences:
“In my judgement it is somewhat surprising that … relevant copies of the licences, or indeed any detailed information as to how they came to be entered into, have not been provided. Put simply, the Claimant and the Court do not currently have the full picture.”
This is a pertinent reminder that for all parties in Judicial Review proceedings of the duty of candour “with all the cards face upwards on the table and the vast majority of the cards will start in the authority’s hands”.