Castle v DPP
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Pitchford,Mr Justice Cranston,Mr Justice Green |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 587 (Admin),[2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/14080/2012,CO/16821/2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 14 April 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Green
Case No: CO/14080/2012
Mr Timothy Comyn for the Claimant
Mr Douglas Edwards QC (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 21 March 2014
A. Introduction
This is a statutory review pursuant to section 124 and Schedule 9 paragraph 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("RTRA") in relation to four traffic regulation orders ("TROs") adopted by Slough Borough Council ("SBC") in 2012 which concern four roads in a largely residential area within the Slough conurbation. The four roads are: Chalvey Road West, Chalvey Road East, Ragstone Road and Ledgers Road. SBC made the TROs on the 20 November 2012 in its capacity as the traffic authority.
The Claimant operates a supermarket on Chalvey Road West and is concerned about the impact of the orders on local trade. The Claimant has advanced a substantial number of objections to the adoption of the TROs. In particular it submits: that SBC failed to have regard to or treat the Claimants' written submissions and objections as relevant; that the consultative exercise conducted by SBC prior to adoption of the TROs was inadequate; that SBC failed to give proper reasons for making the TROs; that SBC failed to have any or any proper regard to the "A4 Brunel Heart of Slough" project that was on-going throughout the period during which the TROs were being trialled; that SBC failed to act upon evidence in rejecting a recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee that a trialling of Chalvey Road West returning to two way operation should be undertaken before the TROs were made permanent; that SBC failed to trial different options for Chalvey Road West in breach of a legitimate expectation that they would do so; and finally that SBC failed to give proper or lawful consideration to the holding of a public enquiry into the making of the TROs.
B. The facts
The roads in issue have proven problematic over a lengthy period of time. They have been used as a "rat run" between the A4 and M4 corridors. This has created an unacceptably high incidence of accidents including involving pedestrians and has led to increased pollution as a result of an increase in stationary traffic. A survey conducted in 2009 of the views of local residents in Chalvey identified, inter alia, as priorities for the area: an improvement of provision for parking; an improvement in the appearance of the streets; and, changes to roads to deter rat running and in order to reduce accidents.
In August 2011 SBC introduced a number of experimental TROs. These had the effect of making a series of roads within the Chalvey area one way for their entire length. The statement of reasons accompanying the experimental TROs were in the following form:
"The local community in Chalvey has repeatedly told the Council, through correspondence and consultation, that traffic problems are a major concern in Chalvey…. These problems include traffic congestion, road casualties, pollution and environmental concerns, and concerns that all these combine to degrade the quality of life of residents. In consultation with the residents groups, the Council has developed a package of measures, which may alleviate these problems: closure of Chalvey Road West in one or both directions, one-way operation of Ledgers Road, Ragstone Road and Chalvey Road East, reversal of the one-way operation of Martin Road, and parking controls in various locations to complement these measures. The reason for promoting these measures, on an experimental basis, is to enable the Council to test different combinations of the measures, in consultation with the local community, to be able to assess and decide whether a combination of the measures would be a good permanent solution to the long standing problems. The reason for promoting the measures as separate orders is to enable the Council to respond flexibly to feedback from the community and to the impact of the measures on the wider network."
Contrary to the expectations of SBC these proposals led to protests. In the witness statement of Ms Lynsey Brookfield, Team Leader (Road Safety and Integrated Transport) for SBC the following is stated:
"In August 2011 a public protest was held between 100–150 members of the public who supported the highway trials, but called for the Council not to completely close Chalvey Road West to all traffic as had been agreed at the Cabinet meeting on 18 July 2011. In response to this protest, it was recommended by officers that Chalvey Road West would not be fully pedestrianised, but that a one way system should be trialled instead."
In consequence the plan was varied to introduce a one-way system in Chalvey Road West with new parking provided for shoppers. The experimental measures were implemented in October 2011 in conjunction with work then being conducted by Thames Water who were in the process of closing roads in Chalvey to replace the main sewer in the area. The intention was that Thames Water would complete their works upon a road and then, whilst the road closure was still operative, SBC would implement the experimental one-way system on the road which would then re-open. The aim of this was to minimise disruption to residents and businesses within the Chalvey area.
In the ensuing months progress reports upon the operation of the experimental TROs were provided to, inter alia, the Overview & Scrutiny Committee of SBC. The minutes of the meeting of 11 th October 2011 show the range of issues being debated. For example a report was provided by the Assistant Director (Transport and Planning). She introduced officers from Thames Water who gave a presentation about the position of the replacement of water mains in Chalvey and as to how this impacted upon the experimental TROs. The Assistant Director explained that the works conducted by Thames Water were separate and unconnected to the experimental road proposals. A report was also provided by the Head of Transport detailing the history of the proposals and providing an update on the latest progress of the scheme. It was stated that there would be "public engagement" over the next few months by way of meetings with identifiable groups and drop in sessions. It was stated that this engagement "…would assess whether the proposed measures were welcomed by the Chalvey community." The minutes also record the wide range of different views expressed by those in attendance. One issue concerned the relationship between the experimental orders and the "Heart of Slough scheme". The minutes record: "A member questioned how the wider Slough community had been consulted because Chalvey Road was a major artery through Slough from East to West. Bearing in mind there were works going on for the Heart of Slough Scheme, Chalvey Road was a major alternative route – why could the traffic phases not have been experimented with?" The Assistant Director reminded the Committee that many of the consultation questions had centred on environmental issues and residents had confirmed that improvements which reduced "dirt and grime" were very important. It was emphasised that Chalvey was a community and not just a rat run for traffic. The Committee was also advised that there would be an embargo on road works during the run up to the Olympic Games and for this reason there had been no other option but to carry out the Thames Water works and the Heart of Slough works at the same time.
In March 2012 the Council distributed questionnaires to approximately 6,000 residents relating to the experimental TROs and their operation. Responses were invited by 20 April 2012 a period which was subsequently extended. Nine questions were asked inviting the answer "yes" or "no" or "no opinion". During this period an organisation called the "Chalvey Business and Community Forum" collected a petition of 2686 signatures which objected to the one-way experimental TRO trials. The Claimant, through its then director, objected that SBC had not considered any or any sufficient alternatives.
On 26 June 2012 an Extraordinary Meeting of SBC was held to address these concerns during which the Mayor invited the Claimant to address the Council on behalf of the petitioners. A debate ensued in the course of which Councillor Wright, seconded by Councillor Smith, moved;
"That the one-way experimental traffic system in Chalvey be reversed at the earliest opportunity"
The motion was put but was defeated by 6 votes to 29 votes with 1 abstention. Following the debate and the vote upon the motion the following resolution was adopted:
"That the Petition be noted and that the Cabinet be requested to take note of the points made in the debate and the representations submitted by the Lead Petitioner when the matter is considered at the Cabinet Meeting on 16 July 2012."
On 10 July 2012 the Overview & Scrutiny Committee of SBC met to consider the operation of the experimental TROs. The Committee endorsed the one-way traffic management systems implemented in Ragstone Road, Ledgers Road and Chalvey Road East but resolved to recommend:
"That the Council undertake a further study of the impact of Chalvey Road West returning to two away operations (in conjunction with the other roads remaining one-way before making a final decision on the future of Chalvey Road West."
It is recorded in the minutes that an equal number of members voted for and against the proposal and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Roxlena Ltd) v Cumbria County Council
...here was generous (see, for example, the judgment of Green J., as he then was, in AA & Sons Ltd. v Slough Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin)). 54 I agree with the judge that the evidence of interruption of use within the relevant 20-year period, contentious as it was, did not have to......
-
R Andrew Plant v Lambeth London Borough Council
...with a challenge to the introduction by a local authority of road traffic regulation orders ( AA and Sons Ltd v Slough Borough Council [2014] RTR 29 Green J reacted to the Claimant's reliance upon a "traditional Wednesbury" challenge by stating (in paragraph 26): — "However, this nowadays ......
-
Sarah Williams (A Representative Claimant for "e17 Streets4all") v London Borough of Waltham Forest
...asserted. This line of argument was not pursued further and, in my judgment, was untenable. 70 In AA & Sons v Slough Borough Council [2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin), Green J held at paragraph 60: "The Court does have the power to find that a failure to exercise a power to appoint an inspector is u......
-
Richard William Tomkins v City of London Corporation
...would have been held to be unlawful on grounds of irrationality or any other public law ground (see AA and Sons Ltd v Slough BC [2014] EWHC 1127 (Admin) at 102 Therefore, applying the approach in the case of Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [2017] PTSR 104......
-
DELEGATION OF POWERS FOR MODERN GOVERNMENT
...ex parte Sherwin (1996) 32 BMLR 1 at 8. 96 R v Secretary of State for Social Services, ex parte Sherwin (1996) 32 BMLR 1 at 9. 97 [2014] EWHC 587. 98 Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 at [6]. 99 Castle v Crown Prosecution Service [2014] EWHC 587 at [23]. 100 Castle v Crown ......