Andrews v Reading Borough Council (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE CALVERT-SMITH |
| Judgment Date | 07 February 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] EWHC 256 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | HQ04 T X 01283 |
| Date | 07 February 2005 |
[2005] EWHC 256 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Royal Courts of Justice,
The Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Calvert-Smith
HQ04 T X 01283
MR JACK instructed by Barrett & Co of Reading, appeared on behalf of the Claimant.
MISS CARRINGTON instructed by Clarks of Reading appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Monday, 7 th February 2005
Mr Andrews, the claimant in this case, is a retired engineer. He lives with his wife at 50A London Road, Reading. The house is on two floors. The main bedroom is on the ground floor with a window facing London Road. They have lived there since 1976. London Road forms the A4 road which crosses Reading from east to west. It is one-way westbound at the point at which it passes number 50A and has three lanes.
Since 1998 Reading Borough Council, the defendants, have been responsible for the roads and traffic in the town. For many years until 2000 there had been two main roads into the town centre from the east: London Road and Kings Road. From the mid to late 1990s there had been discussions about the possibility of closing off the Kings Road route to incoming traffic, except buses, and diverting it all onto London Road.
This would have the desirable consequence, among others, of enabling bus lanes to be installed in both directions in King Road.
Although at the point with which this case is concerned it is primarily a residential road, London Road was and still is a major through road and had the capacity to absorb a significant increase in traffic.
In 1998 when the defendants took over responsibility for the roads of the town proposals were put before the Transport Committee concerning the new bus lane in the Kings Road. At the end of that year it was agreed there would be a consultation on the Kings Road bus lane with a view to funding a scheme from next year's programme. Babtie Group Limited, a private company, were until 2000 contracted to provide traffic management services to the defendant. They, in consultation with Council officers, drafted and circulated a leaflet to local residents and businesses setting out broadly what was proposed. Its content was general and contained no reference to potential adverse effects of the scheme. There had thus far been no attempt by the Council to assess those effects beyond rough predictions of the increase in traffic volume.
A leaflet invited its recipients to four public meetings in the area. The first of these took place on 8 th November 1999. It seems that one or more of those who attended the meeting raised concerns about the consequences of diverting traffic from Kings Road to London Road and may have asked for figures. The next day, 9 th November, Mr Norris, then at Babtie but from 2000, when traffic management was taken in-house by Reading Borough Council,of that Council, sent a fax to the Council. It concerned the figures on traffic movements which had been asked for the previous day. Mr Norris suggested that real figures should not be produced since it could "stir up a hornet's nest" and that an alternative strategy be pursued based on a report produced in early 1995.
The claimant attended the second meeting on 11 th November. He voiced his concerns over the potential environmental consequences for him and other residents of London Road and at the apparent lack of any research into the issue. Figures he was given at the meeting were said to be "off the cuff".
On 8 th December Mr Andrews wrote to the Council reiterating his concerns and reminding them of his request for traffic figures. His letter stated, "Details of the traffic volumes using Kings Road, London Road and Eldon Road were requested at the public meeting at St Andrews Church. This information would have allowed me to make an independent assessment of the likely increase in traffic on London Road and Eldon Road. However, other than 'off the cuff' estimates given at the public meeting, which would not seem to have been well researched, as sample counts have shown them to be grossly understated, the requested information has not been supplied. Notwithstanding the above, I understand that the likely increase in traffic on London Road will be in the region of 150% during the morning peak hour. (Reading Chronicle November 26 th) As stated above, London Road, Eldon Road, Sidmouth Street and the areas to the south of London Road are predominantly residential. A significant increase in traffic flows along London Road (more than double) can only increase noise, air pollution and a sense of severance that residents experience from social and employment opportunities to the north, e.g. Reading College, leisure facilities, Reading town centre, et cetera. It will of course reduce road safety in the area. Whilst it is accepted that reducing traffic flows on Kings Road will improve conditions in terms of pollution and humanity for properties on Kings Road the proposal would significantly worsen conditions for properties on London Road, Eldon Road and Sidmouth Street. It is therefore clear that the proposed traffic management scheme will improve conditions for commercial properties at the expense of large numbers of residential homes. Clearly such an increase in traffic would have a significant impact on the amenity and environment of residents on and adjoining London Road, Eldon Road and Sidmouth Street."
The letter was considerably longer than that but I have quoted what I feel to be the relevant portions. His letter was acknowledged but no substantive reply was sent.
After analysis of the views expressed at the meeting and in correspondence after the meeting and further consideration, the Council decided to press ahead and six alternative options were drawn up by Babtie. Common to all of them was the new bus lane in the Kings Road and the consequent diversion of all inbound non bus traffic along London Road. The variations were concerned with the side roads, Eldon Road and Sidmouth Street, along which traffic which had travelled along London Road and past the claimant's house would be able to get to the Kings Road.
In February the elected Council indicated their preference for the sixth option. A further consultation was organised and once again a leaflet was produced and circulated within the relevant area.
On 3 rd March the defendant, via Ms Baxter, wrote to the claimant explaining the Council's views on the options and giving detailed reasons as to why both the side roads would be used. She pointed out the increase in traffic on London Road, but said that the increase "though not desirable is an acceptable use for a three-lane Class A road". She enclosed a leaflet and questionnaire for a further public meeting and exhibition.
These took place on 31 st March 2000. Members of Babtie and the defendant and local residents, including the claimant, attended. Traffic figures for morning and p.m. peak times were displayed, although it was not possible to take them away. Option Five, which had been favoured by Council officers, estimated in rough figures a doubling of morning peak time traffic and a 50% increase in the afternoon peak. Option six, the one eventually chosen by the defendant, estimated an approximate 90% increase in the morning and slightly more than 50% in the afternoon.
When pressed by counsel in cross-examination as to why he had not been more persistent in his objections to the scheme at that stage, the claimant said that he formed the view that the decisions in principle to create the bus lane and re-route the traffic had been taken and that the only questions left were which of the six options, or any variant or combination of them, would be implemented.
Having seen the supporting documentation and the leaflet I find that he was entitled to come to that conclusion.
On 13 th June a full Council meeting of the defendant approved the scheme, option six. No noise assessment had been carried out.
Following the decision the statutory consultation process began. This required a formal announcement of the proposal and a period during which objections to it could be lodged. This expired on 14 th July 2000. The claimant, for the same reasons as before, did not enter a formal objection at this stage.
On 27 th September the claimant wrote to the defendant about the possibility of a grant to cover "the cost of measures necessary to reduce the increased traffic noise, vibration and pollution in their properties and send me application forms as appropriate."
On 2 nd October 2000 the principal provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force.
On 11 th October the necessary Road Traffic Regulation was made to implement the scheme and it was introduced a few days later on 17 th October.
The unchallenged evidence of the claimant was that "Immediately on implementation levels of day time and night time noise increased dramatically. Previously it had been possible to sleep in the front bedrooms with the three side windows open. After the scheme started, it was not just sufficient to keep the windows closed. The noise was intolerable at the property both during the day and at night. I had to take measures to mitigate this, using MDF (medium density fibre) board shutters to the front and side bedroom windows. I can state from personal experience that the amount of noise generated by road traffic is much greater than before. After implementation of the scheme and until I installed the sound installation for which I am claiming in this action it was impossible to enjoy an undisturbed night's sleep."
On 12 th October a Mr Marks of the defendant emailed Mr Norris concerning Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derrick Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 3]
...not confer immunity on the authority which implements it from actions in nuisance": see Calvert-Smith J in Andrews v Reading BC No 2 [2005] EWHC 256 (QB). 234 But, at paragraph 20–107 of Clerk and Lindsell, the learned editors comment that, since the question of whether or not a certain act......