Gurpreet Singh Anand v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lang |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWHC 2964 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2734/2019 |
| Date | 06 November 2019 |
[2019] EWHC 2964 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mrs Justice Lang DBE
Case No: CO/2734/2019
Nick Armstrong (instructed by Teacher Stern LLP) for the Claimants
Charles Streeten (instructed by Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 17 October 2019
Approved Judgment
The Claimants seek a statutory review, pursuant to paragraph 35 of schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”), of a Traffic Management Order (The Kensington and Chelsea (Charged for Parking Places) (Amendment No. 5) Order 2019) (“the No. 5 Order”), which was made by the Defendant (“the Council”) on 4 July 2019, and imposed additional parking restrictions in the area of Queensdale Road, London W11.
The Claimants are trustees of the Central Gurdwara (Khalsa Jatha) London, a charity which runs a Gurdwara (a Sikh Temple) at 62 Queensdale Road, London W11 4SG. The congregation, many of whom are elderly and less mobile, travel long distances by car to the Gurdwara. If they are unable to park, they may no longer attend, thus threatening the viability of the Gurdwara at its present site.
Previously, the controlled hours for residents-only parking operated from 8.30 am to 6.30 pm on weekdays, and from 8.30 am to 1.30 pm on Saturdays. The new controlled hours for residents-only parking will run from 8.30 am to 10.00 pm on weekdays, from 8.30 am to 6.30 pm on Saturdays, and from 1 pm to 5 pm on Sundays.
The Claimants applied for an interim order to suspend the operation of the Traffic Management Order (“TMO”). On 15 July 2019, Cutts J. suspended the No. 5 Order pending the determination of the claim. On 26 July 2019, Sir Duncan Ouseley, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, accepted undertakings from the Respondent not to enforce parking restrictions in accordance with the No. 5 Order until after judgment in this claim, and discharged the order made by Cutts J.
Facts
The First Claimant's evidence was that the Gurdwara is the oldest established Gurdwara in the UK, and it has occupied the current site since 1969. It is a place of worship, and also a hub for various events which are important to the Sikh community, including meetings, an education programme for children, school visits, and community projects, which help those in need. Regular religious services are held on Wednesday evenings at 6.30 pm – 8.00 pm, and on Saturday and Sunday at 7.00 am – 9.00 am and 4.00 pm – 8.30 pm.
As it is the only Gurdwara in central London, members of its congregation (the Sangat) travel long distances across London and its suburbs to attend services and other events, and they find it convenient to travel by car, especially in the evenings and weekends. There is a preponderance of elderly members, who have been attending the Gurdwara for decades. They have formed close bonds with each other over the years, and greatly value the shared experience of worship and participation in the other activities at the Gurdwara. It is estimated that about 65% of members are over 70 years old, some of whom have reduced mobility and anxiety about using public transport. There was evidence that at least one person was giving lifts to disabled and vulnerable members and relied on being able to park near the Gurdwara upon arrival. About 15 members have blue badges. Some 15% of members comprise families with young children, who also find it convenient to drive to the Gurdwara.
The new parking restrictions will apply during services and other activities in the evening and at weekends. Members will have difficulty in parking within easy walking distance of the Gurdwara. According to the First Claimant, there are only 3 pay and display parking bays, and a small number of single yellow line parking spaces, within easy walking distance of the Gurdwara. The likely consequence of the lack of suitable parking facilities is that many members will cease to attend the Gurdwara.
Even a modest reduction in the number of members would have a catastrophic effect on the Gurdwara's financial position. The Gurdwara requires a minimum income of around £135,000 p.a. to survive. In an average month, the Gurdwara receives £6,000 to £7,000 in donations from the Sangat. About half the Sangat are members who pay a regular subscription. At main religious festivals, such as the Vaisaikhi and gurpurabs, the Gurdwara can expect to receive an additional £10,000 to £15,000 in donations.
Weddings and other booked events generate an income of around £35,000 p.a. and so they are an important source of revenue for the Gurdwara. Typically at a Sikh wedding there are 400 or more guests. As they are dressed in heavy traditional clothes for the occasion, public transport is often not practicable. Weddings last from around 9.30 am to 2 pm or later. The new parking restrictions will deter people from holding their weddings at the Gurdwara.
Ms Horbury, Transport Policy Manager at the Council, gave evidence that, in the Queensdale Road area, there are 343 residents' parking spaces and 329 permit holders. However, residents from any part of the Borough are permitted to park in any residents' parking space as the borough is not divided into parking zones. She took issue with the First Claimant's evidence, stating that there are 35 pay and display bays and 99 yellow line spaces within walking distance of the Gurdwara, which can be used on weekdays after 6.30 pm, after 1.30 pm on Saturday and all day on Sunday, free of charge. I concluded that there was a difference of opinion between the Council and the Claimants as to what amounted to easy walking distance.
The Council issues disabled persons purple badges to those who reside, work or study in the Borough, enabling them to use residents parking bays, and pay and display bays without charge. Those from outside the Borough who hold a disabled blue badge may park in blue badge bays, of which there are four in the Queensdale Road area. Blue badge holders are also granted one hour free parking over and above the paid-for time in pay and display bays, and they may park for 20 minutes on a single yellow line during controlled hours for the purpose of dropping off or picking up disabled passengers. Two disabled residents in the Queensdale Road area have dedicated disabled parking spaces.
Following some requests for extended controlled parking from local residents, in March 2018 the Defendant conducted a parking occupancy survey in an area around Queensdale Road. The survey showed that during weekday evenings and Sundays overall occupancy was 80%, and on Saturdays it was 75%. There were a significant number of non-resident vehicles. Ms Horbury explained, in paragraph 3 of her first witness statement, that, unlike pay and display bays, residents' bays are not individually marked out in bays, and occupancy level is calculated on the basis of the number of cars that should theoretically be able to park in a bay. If cars park leaving large gaps between vehicles, the number of cars that can actually park in the bay is reduced. Thus, a bay with a theoretical capacity of 10 cars might be completely full, even though it has only 8 vehicles parked in it. In such a case, the survey would record an 80% occupancy rate. In light of these results, the Council concluded that the level of parking was high, and it decided to carry out a non-statutory consultation exercise, with residents and business in the area, in accordance with its common practice.
On 22 June 2018, the Defendant posted details of the proposed changes to 1,196 properties in the affected area. There were 310 responses from residents, 8 from local businesses, and 4 from other organisations. The original deadline for comments was extended from 23 July to 7 September 2018 to allow more time for comments to be received.
On 23 July 2018, the W11 Faith Group, comprising St James Church, Holland Park Synagogue, St Francis of Assisi Church, the Islamic Universal Association and the Gurdwara, sent a joint response to the Council objecting to the proposals. The letter stated that the congregations consisted of a mixture of residents and visitors, and argued that of those visitors “older members, disabled members and families tend to travel in by car and park in available spaces for the duration of the religious service. For both of these groups, the ability to drive into the Royal Borough and park within it for the duration of the religious service is a key facilitator of their ability to worship. To use public transport to attend religious service would be practically and logistically difficult for these members”. It asserted that two “scenarios” would flow from extended hours: (1) attendance at religious services would decrease and as a consequence, donations to places of worship would fall “which would impact our funding”; and (2) the institutions would be forced to modify the timings of their religious services. The letter disputed that there was insufficient residents' parking available at evenings and weekends, and argued that the limited use by people attending places of worship was reasonable and proportionate.
A total of 84 comments were made in support of the extension of parking controls. In summary:
i) Some residents are unable to park anywhere near their homes at evenings and weekends, and have to circle and queue to find a space, and double-park outside their homes if they have to unload heavy items. Disabled residents and families with young children find this particularly difficult.
ii) 48 comments mentioned the impact of Westfield on evening and weekend parking. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LJ Fairburn & Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
...for it in some of their own evidence. For these reasons, and by analogy with Anand v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2019] EWHC 2964 (Admin) at [85], I accept the Defendant's evidence on this 85 However, the fact that biosecurity measures can prevent the spread of AI does not, in ......
-
HHRC Ltd v Hackney Borough Council
...read. That earlier jurisprudence was helpfully set out and distilled by Lang J in Singh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2019] EWHC 2964 (Admin) at paragraphs 87–92 as follows: “87. The public sector equality duty has been the subject of detailed consideration by the courts over ......
-
Petition Of For Women Scotland Limited For Judicial Review Of The Definition Of "woman" Contained In The Gender Representation On Public Boards (scotland) Act 2018 And Decisions Of The Scottish Ministers Related Thereto (first) The Lord Advocate And (second) The Scottish Ministers And For Public Interest Intervention The Equality Network (intervenor)
...written argument in relation to the interpretation of the section 149 EA 2010 duty summarised in Annand v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2019] EWHC 2964. It was clear, however, that this statutory duty does not compel a particular outcome. The purpose of the duty is to ensure that public auth......