Challenges facing green space: is statute the answer?

Against a backdrop of austerity, characterised by public-sector funding cuts and a devolutionary agenda, this paper explores how legislation might address two, inter-related challenges which face public urban green space ('greenspace') in England and Wales; namely, responsibility for provision, and identification of supporting funds. It focuses on two proposals; first, the introduction of legislative powers to enable local authorities to create user-charging schemes, and secondly, the imposition of a local authority statutory duty to provide greenspace

Quasi-public place-governance: an exploration of shopping centres

Shopping centres face multiple issues arising from their status as quasi-public Third Places. Such challenges are compounded by the enduring, difficult retail environment. Against this backdrop, the research explores how a legally pluralistic understanding of place-governance could inform future strategies for securing shopping centres’ roles within the community. This UK-based, bistage, multi-case study draws on various data sources collected from seven shopping centres across Northern England. It adopts both thematic analysis and cross-case synthesis to generate rich findings. The data analysis identified three key themes: the diverse shopping centre population, internally generated norms and externally developed law. This article makes a bifold contribution to the literature. First, it commingles and develops theories of legal geography and legal pluralism to introduce a new tripartite lens for exploring place-governance, which comprises black-letter, policy and cultural elements. Secondly, it utilizes this model to generate empirically based findings about shopping centre place-governance from the insider perspectives of centre management, centre operatives and tenants

Greenspace governance: statutory solutions from Scotland?

The environmental, social and economic benefits provided by greenspace are well-documented, and the closure of other types of Third Place has popularised them further. Yet, public sector funding cuts have necessitated local authorities prioritising other facilities that they are statutorily obliged to provide, resulting in a facilities-hierarchy which leaves financially-neglected greenspaces facing a vicious circle of decline. The Big Society agenda has seen local authorities increasingly rely on the voluntary sector to help plug the funding gap, yet there are concerns that such groups are not immune from the effects of austerity themselves which limit their panacean abilities. In exploring whether statute could provide any answers to these greenspace governance challenges, this article considers the lessons to be learned from the approach adopted in Scotland, underpinned by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act'). In particular, the 2003 Act establishes public rights of access over most greenspace, a local authority duty to uphold these rights and local authority powers to take remedial action. Whilst there have been some issues in implementation, this article explores the potential for adopting a similar model in England & Wales to help secure the future of its greenspace infrastructure

Supreme Court closes another vicarious liability loophole: Woodland V Swimming Teachers Association

On 23 October 2013 the Supreme Court closed another vicarious liability loophole when it handed down its judgment in Woodland. The respondent education authority was set to escape any potential liability for a negligently conducted swimming lesson simply because the lesson had been carried out by an independent contractor, rather than an employee. For this reason, both parties agreed that the respondent could not be vicariously liable, yet to deny the claimant any possibility of seeking compensation from the authority for the incident on that basis would have been unpalatable. Accordingly, the court kept the education authority in the frame by endorsing and expounding a concept little-used in English law but supported by some powerful dicta: the non-delegable duty of care. In contrast to vicarious liability, the non-delegable duty is a personal one, which requires a defendant not merely to take reasonable care, but to ensure that reasonable care is taken; a task may be delegated to an independent contractor, but the duty may not. The Supreme Court explained that a non-delegable duty would arise where: (1) the claimant is especially vulnerable or dependent on the defendant's protection against risk of injury; (2) there is an antecedent relationship between the two which puts the claimant in the defendant's custody, charge or care and from which it is possible to say that the defendant has assumed a duty to ensure care is taken; (3) the claimant has no control over how the defendant chooses to perform its obligations; (4) the defendant has delegated a function which is an integral part of the positive duty it assumed, such that the delegate now exercises custody, charge or care over the claimant on the defendant's behalf; and (5) the defendant has delegated its duty to a third party, who has performed it negligently. Reversing the decision of the lower courts and remitting the case for trial, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the education authority owed the claimant a non-delegable duty, which could give rise to liability for any negligence in this case. Following Woodland, it is now clear that, when exercising their core functions, schools, hospitals and other similar organisations will owe personal, non-delegable duties towards those persons entrusted into their custody, charge or care. In such cases, claimants who suffer loss by reason of the negligent performance of the defendant's core functions will be entitled to seek redress from the defendant by an alternative route, where they cannot establish vicarious liability. Against the backdrop of a climate where outsourcing is now common place, this judgment is a particularly pertinent one and its practical implications will need to be factored into operational decision-making. However, any objections from potential defendants are easily outweighed by the policy justifications for closing this particular loophole