Applicant seeking to quash decision of respondent parish council to construct bus shelter – Applicant contending that shelter interfering with access to land – Whether respondents properly exercising their discretion – Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 and Parish Councils Act 1957 – Application dismissed
In February 1998 the respondent parish council decided to site a bus shelter on the A342 High Street, between the accesses of two properties, one of which was owned and occupied by the applicant. The power vested in the respondents to construct a bus shelter arose from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953 and the Parish Councils Act 1957. Such a power was not to be exercised where the proposed shelter would obstruct or interfere with an existing access to land or premises, except with the consent of the owner. The respondents informed the applicant of the reasons for their decision, which stated that “the proposed shelter will not adversely affect the actual access to either of the adjoining properties, though it is recognised that vision along the high street will be impaired”. It was agreed that the shelter did not physically obstruct access to the applicant’s land.
The applicant submitted that the respondents did not properly understand the extent of the requirement that there be no “interference” with existing access, and therefore failed to properly exercise their discretion under either the 1953 or the 1957 Act. The respondents submitted that the use of the word “interfere” in the legislation added nothing to the use of the word “obstruct” and that the relevant provisions did not cover anything other than physical interference with an access.
Held: The application was dismissed.
The word “interfere” had to be seen in the context in which it was put, namely to indicate when consent of a landowner was required. Assuming that there was a diminution in visibility for exiting vehicles, there still had to be some material effect on those using the access. Only then could it be said that the reasonable use of the access had been interfered with. It was clear from the evidence that adequate visibility for the access would be maintained past the proposed shelter. There would not therefore be “interference” with the access to the applicant’s land within the meaning of the statutory provisions.
Douglas Edwards (instructed by Bevan Ashford, of Bristol) appeared for the applicant; Karen McHugh (instructed by Wansbroughs, of Devizes) appeared for the respondents.
Sarah Addenbrooke, barrister
