Council implementing local plan and making experimental orders for priority route – Applicants seeking to quash orders – Whether council exercising their powers unlawfully – Road Traffic Act 1991 – Application dismissed
The first respondent (the council) made two experimental orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which implemented a “red route” along the A3220, the Earls Court one-way system (the ECOWS). The red route was a priority route designed to improve the movement of traffic along what were deemed to be important traffic routes in London. Under the London Priority Route Order 1992, the Secretary of State had designated the ECOWS as a red route, which the council were opposed to in principle. A network plan was prepared by the director of transport (the second respondent) for the design and operation of the red route. Accordingly, the council submitted a local plan to the director, which was approved in September 1995. Following various amendments, the Highways and Traffic Committee authorised the making of the orders.
The applicants, who were individual members of the fifth applicant, sought to quash both orders, pursuant to Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act, on six grounds, inter alia that the council had unlawfully or irrationally exercised their powers when making the orders, in failing to consider the principle of whether the ECOWS should be a red route.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The statutory scheme contained in the Road Traffic Act 1991 governed the question of whether the council had power to consider the principle that the ECOWS should be a red route when deciding whether to make the orders. Once the local plan had been approved, the council were under a duty, pursuant to section 57(1) of the 1991 Act, to implement their local plan as soon as was reasonably practicable, and to continue to act in a manner that was compatible with it. The words “as soon as is reasonably practicable” in section 57(1) gave a discretion to the council as to the timing of the implementation, but did not give them a discretion to object in principle to the implementation of the red route in their area. The council had therefore not erred in considering themselves bound to implement the red route and in making the orders they did. A decision not to do so would have been a breach of their duty under the Act: R v Warwickshire County Council, ex parte Powergen plc (1997) 3 PLR 62 considered. The application was dismissed on all grounds.
Stephen Hockman QC and Clare Wright (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared for the applicants; Timothy Straker QC and Peter Harrison (instructed by the solicitor to Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council ) appeared for the first respondents; Mark Lowe QC and James Findlay (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the second respondent.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
