Applicant seeking judicial review of respondent council’s policy of constructing road humps – Whether respondents erring in placing road humps above or within 25m of culverts – Regulation 4(6) of Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 – Application dismissed
The applicant, who was concerned about road safety, sought judicial review of the respondent council’s decision to construct road humps in Sheffield. He contended that the siting of road humps by the respondents contravened the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999, regulation 4(6) of which provided: “No road hump shall be constructed or maintained in a highway: (e) above or within 25 metres of any part of a bridge over which a carriageway of that highway passes or any part of a tunnel, culvert or other similar structure which crosses beneath a carriageway of that highway”.
The applicant submitted that the term “culvert” included any means by which water, effluent or a service, such as electricity or telephone cables, was conveyed beneath the surface, and that it could, therefore, include any pipe, sewer or drain. He submitted that the term did not include water or gas mains, which had their own definition.
The respondents submitted that the applicant’s construction would totally frustrate parliament’s clear intention, which was to reduce speed in urban areas by the use of road humps, and that it would produce an absurd result, as very few, if any, road humps would be permitted to remain. The respondents contended that “culvert” should be given a narrow meaning, submitting that the term dealt with structures that “crossed beneath” the carriageway and could not, therefore, include drains, or pipes that ran along the carriageway.
Held: The application was dismissed.
There was a need to protect from damage various services running under the roads. However, looking at the purpose behind the provisions and the use of the word “culvert”, in conjunction with “bridge”, “tunnel” and “other similar structures”, the narrow meaning of the term was the correct one. There was nothing to suggest that the council had acted unlawfully in providing the road humps.
The applicant appeared in person; Philip Kolvin (instructed by the solicitor to Sheffield City Council) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
