Road traffic – Traffic management – Traffic regulation order – Claimant landowner applying for judicial review of defendant traffic authority to make traffic regulation order under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – Whether sufficient traffic management reasons for making order – Whether reasons for making order irrational – Whether defendant making mistake of fact or having regard to irrelevant matters – Whether defendant failing properly to undertake required balancing exercise – Whether defendant having insufficient regard to claimant’s rights – Claim dismissed
The defendant, as traffic authority for the city of Carlisle, made a traffic regulation order (TRO) under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in respect of an unadopted highway known as Barton’s Place, which linked Warwick Road and Mary Street. Warwick Road was a major road which connected the city centre with the M6 motorway. It was subject to a one-way restriction at the junction with Barton’s Place. The TRO restricted access at the top of Barton’s Place, leading down from Warwick Road, to pedestrian traffic only, save for some limited vehicular access exceptions, and makes the bottom of Barton’s Place one way only for all vehicular traffic down to Mary Street.
In 2014, the claimant had acquired land to the west of Barton’s Place and to the north of Mary Street which it had since used as a car park open to the public. Vehicles entered the car park from Mary Street. There was an exit onto Barton’s Place which vehicles could use in order to travel south down to Mary Street and, but for any restrictions, could also have used to travel north onto Warwick Road. The claimant said that it was also considering redevelopment of its land and, in that context, was concerned to ensure that it maintained the public and private rights it had in relation to the use of Barton’s Place, so as to ensure that the opportunities for development were not restricted in any way. Following a statutory consultation, the only objection to the proposed TRO was from the claimant. The claimant applied to quash the TRO.
Held: The claim was dismissed.
(1) Pursuant to section 122 of the 1984 Act, it was the duty of the traffic authority so to exercise the functions conferred on it by the Act as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. The duty was qualified and had to be read with the factors in section 122(2), such as the effect on the amenities of the area and, in the context of making a TRO, with the purposes identified in section 1(1) of the Act. The issue was whether in substance the section 122 duty had been performed and the balancing exercise conducted. The decision-maker had to have in mind the duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) so far as practicable. It then had to have regard to factors which might point in favour of imposing a restriction on that movement; and balance the various considerations and come to the appropriate decision. In the present case, there could be no doubt from the reasons given both for the statutory consultation and the TRO itself that the committee was satisfied that the TRO was expedient for genuine and substantial traffic reasons. There was no basis for a suggestion that the TRO was being sought or made other than for genuine and substantial traffic reasons. There was no question of the advice given in the reports to the committee being wrong or misleading. There was sufficient reference in the reports to the circumstances as they existed and the reasons why the TRO was being proposed for the committee members to be able to be satisfied as to the factual justification for making the TRO. The court was entitled to assume that the committee members had local knowledge and did not need to be told about matters about which it could safely be assumed they were well aware: Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314; [2017] PLSCS 174 and Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1275; [2019] PLSCS 137 applied.
(2) The test for establishing irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness was that the court had to be satisfied that no committee acting reasonably or rationally could have approved the TRO either at all or in the proposed terms. A decision to allow the limited restricted access traffic to exit onto Warwick Road, as opposed to making it one way only, was for the judgment of the committee and not the court. It could not be said to be a decision no reasonable committee acting rationally would make. Nor, on the evidence and reading the reports fairly and as a whole, had the defendant made a mistake or had regard to irrelevant matters.
(3) There was no possible argument that the balancing exercise required by section 122 of the 1984 Act had not been undertaken. Clear and accurate advice was given of the need to take into account the relevant section 1(1) and 122(2) factors. The duty imposed by section 122(1) and the need to balance the access needs of the public against the traffic reasons for making the TRO were expressly referred to and the committee was reminded that traffic considerations should be at the heart of the decision, with reference being made to section 122 as a whole. One had to look to substance and not to form and it was not a difficult or complicated exercise for the traffic authority to conduct. The question could not be considered in a factual vacuum. The claimant had been the only objector. No-one else had suggested that there were particular reasons for considering that making the TRO would conflict with the qualified duty in section 122(1), so that the nature and extent of the proposed interference would conflict with the traffic safety reasons for making the TRO. In substance the balancing exercise was carried out so far as necessary and appropriate to the particular facts of the case.
(4) The defendant was under no statutory or other obligation to consider the commercial impact upon the claimant of making the TRO, particularly insofar as it related to future use which was not the subject even of any application for planning permission and which had not been adverted to in the objections raised. If the claimant subsequently obtained planning permission for redevelopment and could demonstrate a proper basis for revocation, that would afford it a sufficient remedy. The balancing exercise conducted under section 122 had been properly conducted and had given appropriate regard to all relevant factors.
Richard Oughton (instructed by Bendles Solicitors, of Carlisle) appeared for the claimant; Ruth Stockley (instructed by Cumbria County Council Legal & Democratic Services) appeared for the defendant.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Click here to read a transcript of Venuscare Ltd v Cumbria County Council
