Avon ring road – Economic benefit – Effect of induced traffic – Whether Secretary of State for Transport failing to take into account effect of induced traffic on economic appraisal of scheme – Judge refusing application for judicial review – Appeal dismissed
The Avon ring road was to provide, when completed, an orbital route around the northern, eastern and southern sides of Bristol. There remained a gap in the eastern side which stage II was intended to fill. South Gloucestershire Council made two compulsory purchase orders in 1993 and 1994 and a public inquiry was held. The applicants, members of SCRAPPIT, opposed the scheme. The council’s evidence included a cost-benefit analysis conducted with the aid of a computerised evaluation system, COBA 9, showing that the scheme would have a positive economic benefit for road users. In December 1994, while the inspector was writing his report, the government published the findings of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Roads Assessment, SACTRA, which, contrary to the fixed demand approach of COBA, recommended that future evaluations should allow for the likelihood of induced traffic. That recommendation was accepted by the government. In February 1995 the inspector produced his report recommending confirmation of the orders and concluding that the evidence demonstrated a need for the road scheme which would produce significant benefits.
In May 1995 Circular 1/95 was issued indicating that local authorities should take account of the SACTRA recommendations, and the applicants were informed that this policy would apply to schemes in the post-inquiry stage. On September 27 1995 the applicants wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport referring to a report commissioned by SCRAPPIT from the Metropolitan Transport Research Unit, MRTU, which made adjustments for induced traffic and that re-assessing the scheme showed no economic benefit. A reply to their request that confirmation be delayed pending consideration of the report confirmed that the letter would be considered when making the decision. On October 12 the orders were confirmed. The decision letter stated that nothing in the letter of September 27 (which had been duly considered) would have undermined the inspector’s conclusion. The applicants sought judicial review on the grounds, inter alia, that the Secretary of State had failed to take into account the effect of induced traffic on the economic appraisal of the scheme.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. It was clear from the structure of the decision letter, when read with the inspector’s report, that the Secretary of State took the view that even if the MRTU report forecast by the applicant’s letter was correct as an analysis of the possible effect of induced traffic on the council’s COBA 9 evaluation, it was not “material” to his decision because it did not call into question the need for the scheme as found by the inspector and accepted by him. He had therefore not failed to follow policy nor failed to give reasons.
2. The Secretary of State had been entitled to conclude as he did that the scheme was justified regardless of the possible effect on the COBA 9 analysis signalled by the letter of September 27 1995, and had not acted irrationally in proceeding to a decision on consideration of that letter without seeking further representations, and considering, in the light of those representations, whether to re-open the inquiry.
Timothy Corner (instructed by Bindman & Partners) appeared for the appellants; David Holgate QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for Transport; the Secretary of State for the Environment and South Gloucestershire Council (successor to Avon County Council) did not appear and were not represented.
