Hamnett v Essex County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Singh |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4270/2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 February 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 246 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Singh
Case No: CO/4270/2013
Mr Andrew Hogan (instructed by Unity Law) for the Claimant
Ms Barbara Hewson (instructed by Solicitor, Essex County Council) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 29 January 2014
Approved Judgment
Introduction
This is an application for statutory review of two experimental traffic regulation orders made by the Defendant pursuant to its powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (the 1984 Act). The application is made under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act. Such an application does not need the permission of the court, unlike a claim for judicial review brought under Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, as amended (CPR).
The two orders under challenge were made on 4 March 2013 and came into force on 17 March 2013. They were suspended on 21 April 2013, although some elements of them relating to bus lanes (which are not material to the issues in the present case) were reintroduced by the Defendant on 13 October 2013. Nevertheless the orders remain valid and in force for the duration of their lifetime, which is 18 months. It has not been suggested before this court that the issues are academic and should not be decided simply because the orders are currently suspended.
The orders have the effect of preventing private cars from driving in to park on the High Street in Colchester and also the neighbouring street of Head Street. The consequence is that parking spaces for disabled people with blue badges have been removed from those streets. The Defendant has sought to provide an additional 32 parking spaces for disabled people in other parts of Colchester.
The Claimant contends that the orders are unlawful and ultra vires on the following grounds:
(1) they breach section 29 of the Equality Act 2010, read with sections 20 and 15;
(2) in making the orders the Defendant breached its duty in section 149 of the Equality Act, often known as the public sector equality duty;
(3) the Defendant's decision to make the orders was irrational.
The Claimant
The Claimant is 25 years old and has a number of disabilities. As a result of her disabilities she is unable to walk any significant distance without aid. She uses walking sticks for very short distances but struggles to stand for more than 30 seconds. She therefore uses an electric wheelchair.
The Claimant is a registered disabled person with a blue badge and requires her car for mobility purposes. She also chairs a campaigning group for disabled people known as Fair Access to Colchester (or FA2C), which was established in March 2010.
The Claimant travels into Colchester town centre approximately once a week. With her blue badge she was able to park in a parking space on the High Street or Head Street, directly outside the shops and facilities that she wished to use. The building society with which she has an account is located on Culver Street West. She also has a savings account with a bank which is located on the High Street. She also uses the town centre for social purposes, for example meeting friends at restaurants and cafes.
The experimental traffic regulation orders
The first order which is challenged in this application is the Essex County Council (Colchester Town) (Experimental Waiting Restriction) Order 2013. The second order which is challenged is the Essex County Council (Stockwell and Head Street, Colchester) (Experimental Movement Restriction) Order 2013.
The two orders were made by the Defendant in exercise of its powers under sections 9 and 10 of, and Part IV of Schedule 9 to, the 1984 Act. Although made by the Defendant as the local highway authority, the orders were made after close co-operation with the local district council, Colchester Borough Council.
The orders were made on 4 March 2013 and came into effect on 17 March 2013. While they were in force and before their suspension on 21 April 2013, the effect was that between 11.00 am and 6.00 pm the High Street was accessible only by bus, cycle, motorcycle, taxi and licensed private hire vehicles. The space which was previously reserved for blue badge parking was converted to a new taxi rank, for nine vehicles, operating for 24 hours a day. Access to Head Street was not altered but parking bays for blue badge holders were removed.
The Defendant added 32 additional parking spaces for disabled people in car parks at Vineyard Street, Priory Street, St Mary's and Culver Square. However, there is evidence from the Claimant and other witnesses before the court that these parking spaces are too far away, certainly compared to what disabled people previously had access to. There is also evidence of steep gradients in Colchester, which add to the difficulty that disabled people have in walking to the High Street and Head Street from those other car parks.
It is clear from both the Claimant's evidence and submissions made on her behalf in this court that she does not necessarily insist that the Defendant must retain the existing provision for disabled parking spaces on the High Street and Head Street. She has put forward possible alternative solutions which would still, in her view, allow people in her position to be able to access the facilities in the town centre in an adequate way.
The Claimant's position was summarised as follows in an email from her to Alan Lindsay, an officer with the Defendant authority, dated 1 November 2011:
"The current situation is that Blue Badge holders have 26 spaces in the high street, and a further 10 in Head Street. The council have proposed to remove these, and replace them with 32 spaces in the car parks around the town. Our issue is not about the number of spaces, but where these spaces are located. The important issue is that the proposed new spaces should provide equivalent access to the high street and Head Street, and related services as far as possible by comparison with those lost.
The current parking is central, level, and is in very close proximity to shops, banks and other services. This criteria is what any alternative parking suggested should aim to meet.
All the proposed locations for new spaces already exist in the sense that Blue Badge holders are able to park there currently; and being significantly further away with some also entailing long gradients, they do not address the issue of equivalence. The straightforward removal of existing spaces from the high street without the equivalent provision suggests a failure to grasp the crucial significance of location (proximity) in Blue Badge parking."
In her first witness statement, at paras. 54–56, the Claimant states that a number of alternatives were proposed to the Defendant. One suggestion was that blue badge holders should be allowed access to the High Street, supported by number plate recognition or some other enforcement mechanism for those who entered that street without permission. It was also suggested that on Head Street spaces should be designated as dual-bays, so that blue badge holders could use them during the day and taxis could use them at night; alternatively that five spaces should be designated for blue badge holders and five for taxis. A third suggestion was that there should be a reduction in the parking spaces on the High Street, with accessible parking retained at either end, and central spaces replaced by alternative spaces in Culver Street West, Nun's Road and St Nicholas Street. Another suggestion was to permit the loading bays at either end of the High Street to be used by blue badge holders from 10am.
The Defendant's evidence
On behalf of the Defendant evidence has been filed in the form of two witness statements by Alan Lindsay. He is the Strategy and Engagement Manager for Haven Gateway, currently in the Council's Economic Growth and Development team and formerly in its Environment, Sustainability and Highways Directorate.
Mr Lindsay observes that, where there are double yellow lines on a road, having a blue badge means that a person can park for up to three hours in any event, provided that there are no restrictions for loading and unloading. This means that blue badge holders are not restricted to parking in designated parking spaces in car parks on the periphery of the town centre. For example Head Street has always had double yellow lines. The orders have not changed the ability of a blue badge holder to park there for up to three hours.
Mr Lindsay states that the proposals were initially published by the Defendant in 2010 and the consultation period ended on 31 December 2010.
He observes that the number of blue badge holders in Colchester Borough is 7,756. They include people with a wide range of disabilities.
Mr Lindsay states that both the local authorities did consider whether blue badge holders should be exempt from the proposed new restrictions. However, the problem was that blue badge holders (along with other private motorists) tended to circle the town centre, waiting for parking spaces to become available, thereby increasing congestion, which was what the authorities were seeking to reduce.
Initially it was proposed that the orders should be in permanent form. The Defendant advertised its intention to publish the permanent orders for the High Street in 2012. A number of representations were made in response. Following this a number of amendments were made and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamnett v Essex County Council
...IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Mr Justice Singh [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Catherine Casserley (instructed by Unity Law) for the Barbara Hewson (instructed by Essex Legal Se......
-
TS (by TS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA); EK (by MK) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA)
...The field has been covered, to some degree, by three authorities which I need to consider in some detail: Hamnett v Essex CC [2014] EWHC 246 (Admin); [2014] 1 WLR 2562 (at first instance) and [2017] EWCA Civ [2017] 1 WLR 1155 (on appeal); Adesotu v Lewisham LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 1405; and A-K......
-
Robert Tchenguiz v Westminster City Council
...by a public authority; rather it imposes a procedural duty to have due regard to various matters (see Hamnett v Essex County Council [2014] 1 WLR 2562, per Singh J., at 44 The PSED does not require a formal impact assessment to be undertaken (see R (Sheakh) v Lambeth LBC [2021] EWHC 1745 ......
-
Joy Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council
...6; [2017] 1 WLR 1155. Gross LJ, with whom Tomlinson and King LJJ agreed, upheld the decision of Singh J (as he then was), reported at [2014] 1 WLR 2562, that the phrase “claim for judicial review” in s 113(3)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 is a term of art and refers only to a claim for judi......