DECRA PLASTICS Ltd and London Borough of Waltham Forest

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
JudgeMr Justice Richards
Judgment Date13 December 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin)
Date13 December 2002
Docket NumberCase No: CO/3359/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Before

The Honourable Mr Justice Richards

Case No: CO/3359/2002

CO/3749/2002

Between
Decra Plastics Limited
Claimant
and
London Borough of Waltham Forest
Defendant

Mr Clive Moys (instructed by Edwin Coe, Solicitors) for the Claimant

Mr Richard Langham (instructed by Legal Department, London Borough of Waltham Forest) for the Defendant

Mr Justice Richards
1

The claimant company, Decra Plastics Limited ("Decra"), challenges the Waltham Forest (Prescribed Route) (No.1) Traffic Order 2002 ("the traffic order"), which was made by the defendant council, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, on 2 July 2002 and was due to come into operation on 22 July 2002, though its operation has been suspended by injunction pending the resolution of the challenge. The challenge is brought both by way of statutory challenge under paragraph 35 of schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and by way of judicial review. Strictly speaking, the statutory challenge is to the traffic order itself whereas the judicial review challenge is to the decision to make the order. The substantive issues, however, are the same and nothing turns on the dual procedure.

2

The traffic order, which is referred to loosely in the documents as a closure order, prohibits vehicular traffic from entering part of a road known as South Access Road. To the north lies the Markhouse Avenue residential area. To the south lies the borough's main industrial area which includes Forest Business Park, the Roxwell Industrial Estate and the Argall Avenue Industrial Estate. In between, and immediately adjacent to South Access Road, are a number of council facilities, including a sports ground, a household waste and recycling centre, a council depot and a tip site.

3

The council explains that the order is the final part of a programme of highway and traffic regulation works designed to rationalise commercial traffic movements and to enhance residential amenity in this part of the borough. Prior to those works the only means of access by traffic to much of the industrial area (including Forest Business Park) and to the council's facilities was via South Access Road and the residential area to the north. Only the southern part of the industrial area had access from the south, along Argall Avenue. There was a long history of complaints from residents about the volume of commercial traffic through the Markhouse Avenue residential area. Moreover the council wished to redevelop the tip site but took the view that it would be inappropriate to do so if all the traffic had to pass along South Access Road and through the residential area. Accordingly it was decided to provide suitable means of access from the south to the relevant parts of the industrial area and to certain of the council facilities.

4

The principal elements in the programme were (i) the construction, as part of the Leyton Relief Road project, of a north-south spur, namely Argall Way, between Argall Avenue ( East) and Lea Bridge Road, so as to connect the industrial area to Lea Bridge Road and the strategic road network; (ii) the widening and extending of Argall Avenue ( East) and the construction of a new access road, known as the New Access Road, from the end of the extended Argall Avenue ( East) to South Access Road; and (iii) the imposition of waiting and loading restrictions in Argall Avenue ( East) so as to facilitate the flow of additional traffic along that road. There were other details that it is unnecessary to describe. The broad effect was to enable access from the south via Argall Way, Argall Avenue ( East) and the New Access Road to parts of the industrial area and to certain of the council facilities that could previously be accessed only from the north via the Markhouse Avenue residential area and South Access Road.

5

The traffic order was seen as a final and necessary part of the programme. It would ensure that traffic to those parts of the industrial area which previously had access from the north would now have to use the new road links from the south, thereby achieving the desired improvement in amenity in the Markhouse Avenue residential area. Without it, moreover, traffic to those parts of the industrial area which previously had access from the south would now have the additional option of access from the north, thereby harming residential amenity in that area. It was therefore planned that completion of the junction between the New Access Road and South Access Road, i.e. the final element in the overall connection, would coincide with the coming into operation of the traffic order.

6

Decra is a manufacturing company which has been located in the Forest Business Park since 1989. At present, access to its premises is from the north, via South Access Road and Markhouse Avenue. The effect of the order will be to block off access from the north and to require Decra's staff and commercial vehicles to gain access from the south. Decra does not object to commercial traffic being prevented from gaining access from the north: it recognises the strength of the argument about the effect of commercial traffic on residential amenity. It objects strongly, however, to its staff being prevented from travelling to and from work along that route. It says that its current location was chosen in part because of convenient local access for its workforce, which was regarded as a key priority in maintaining the stability of the company. The majority of its staff live to the north. To require them to make a lengthy detour along the main road system, which is already heavily congested, in order to gain access from the south will greatly lengthen their journeys to and from work (typically by some 70 minutes a day). This is unacceptable to staff and has been cited by some as a reason for resignation. There is also concern about the safety of access along Argall Avenue ( East), despite the measures to widen the carriageway and the imposition of waiting and loading restrictions. Furthermore Decra considers that the council has acted unfairly by deciding on closure of South Access Road at a point that will leave access to the council facilities from the north as well as from the south, as compared with an earlier proposal which would have precluded access to the council facilities from the north.

7

With that introduction I turn to examine the relevant history in greater detail.

Factual history

8

A report to the council's Land Strategy Committee dated 8 November 1995 recommended that a feasibility study be undertaken "to fully evaluate options for a highway link between the Argall Avenue Industrial Estate and South Access Road" in conjunction with the Leyton Relief Road project. Three route options were contemplated, the first of which was essentially what has now been implemented. The report stated that the proposal would allow road access to be severed between Markhouse Avenue and South Access Road and would provide massive safety and environmental benefits for the residents of the area. At that time it was contemplated that the closure would be near to the join between Markhouse Avenue and South Access Road, thereby precluding access to the council facilities from the north. The eventual point of closure, however, was further down South Access Road. The report further stated that the link and associated traffic management would have implications for the operation of the council depot and Forest Business Park, so that "any further development of the scheme would involve transportation modelling and environmental impact appraisal". The view eventually reached, however, was that no environmental impact assessment was required.

9

The Land Strategy Committee approved the feasibility study and an appraisal of the options was carried out. A further report to the Committee, dated 10 June 1997, dealt primarily with the remediation and development of the tip site but also dealt with the wider issues of access to the area. It referred to three main options, essentially as before but now contemplating closure of South Access Road at the new position so as to allow access to the civic amenity site and the sports ground from the north. Two further options were considered problematic and undesirable. The report recommended that there be formal consultation on options 1–3 with local businesses, residents, the council depot operators and others. The recommendation was approved.

10

There followed a consultation exercise which included the distribution of leaflets and the holding of public exhibitions to explain the proposals. At a meeting of 9 September 1997 the Committee required further consultation to be carried out because of the poor response from businesses. Further questionnaires were therefore delivered to businesses and further public meetings were held. As a result of comments made at a public meeting on 18 November 1997, option 1 was refined and the amended version became option 1c. Council officials visited local businesses. Mr Alan Campbell, a senior project engineer in the Environmental Services Department and the maker of the council's principal witness statement in these proceedings, states that he personally visited most of the businesses in Forest Business Park, including Decra. Decra's evidence confirms the meeting and states that at the meeting Decra's directors objected strongly to the closure and stated that none of the proposed routes was acceptable. They were told that their objections would be reported back to the committee making the decision.

11

At a meeting on 20 January 1998 the Land Strategy...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Richard William Tomkins v City of London Corporation
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 8 December 2020
    ...and clearly described in the Statement of Reasons. The decision of Richards J in Decra Plastics Ltd v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin) is not concerned with the statutory duty to give reasons in or simultaneously with the Order at issue. His judgment on the admissib......
  • Saferwaters Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 23 July 2025
    ...In this case, there is no evidence that the Secretary of State failed so to apply his mind.” 151 In Decra Plastics Limited v London Borough Of Waltham Forest [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin), a challenge was made to a traffic disclosure order made by the local borough as the final part of a major r......
  • Trail Riders Fellowship v Peak District National Park Authority
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 30 November 2012
    ...clearly described in the Statement of Reasons. The decision of Richards J in Decra Plastics Ltd v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2002] EWHC 2718 (Admin) is not concerned with the statutory duty to give reasons in or simultaneously with the Order at issue. His judgment on the admissibilit......