Samuel Smith Old Brewery(Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE MAURICE KAY |
| Judgment Date | 19 April 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J0419-10 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4424/99 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 19 April 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J0419-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Liverpool Crown Court
Queen Elizabeth II Law Courts
Liverpool L2 1XA
The Hon Mr Justice Maurice Kay
Case No: CO/4424/99
Mr Peter Village and Mr Martin Chamberlin (instructed by Pinsent Curtis) appeared for the Claimant)
Mr Colin Crawford (instructed by North Yorkshire County Council) appeared for the Respondent)
The market town of Tadcaster in North Yorkshire has been known for centuries as a brewing town. Today three brewing companies are active there. One of them is Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster), which I shall refer to as SSOBT. In the 1980's SSOBT commissioned a firm of architects to produce a scheme for the redevelopment of part of the town centre. They produced a report known as Vision of Tadcaster. One of its central features was the pedestrianisation of Westgate, Kirkgate and Chapel Street with the attendant road widening of St. Joseph's Street for diverted through traffic. In the event, Vision of Tadcaster was never implemented and the pedestrianisation suggested on behalf of SSOBT did not find favour. Also in the town centre there is an area known as Central Car Park. It is a public car park dating from the 1970's, since when Selby District Council (the District Council) has established a Thursday Market on part of its surface. Stalls are erected in the early morning each Thursday and removed later in the day. In due course the District Council set up a consultative group known as the Tadcaster Regeneration Group (TRG), comprising, among others, Councillors, Council Officers, representatives of Tadcaster Civic Society and the Chamber of Trade. In or about September 1997, TRG proposed the relocation of Thursday Market from Central Car Park to Kirkgate and part of Westgate where it would operate as a street market on Thursdays. For this to happen, it would need the highway authority, North Yorkshire County Council (the County Council), to use its powers to regulate traffic in the affected area.
The first attempt by the County Council to regulate the traffic was the North Yorkshire County Council (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) (Kirkgate and Westgate (Part Only) Tadcaster Order 1998 No. 101. The County Council purported to rely on powers contained in section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 (the 1984 Act) and the Road Traffic (Temporary Restriction) Procedure Regulations 1992. The Order sought to exclude vehicles from Kirkgate and part of Westgate from 06.00 until 17.00 on Thursdays for a period of twelve months. On 6 July 1998 SSOBT were granted leave to apply for judicial review in respect of that Order and on 23 September 1998 a Consent Order was made quashing the Order following a Form of Consent which had been signed by the parties and which contained the following provision:
"The Respondent (the County Council) and the Person Interested (the District Council) have carefully considered the Order…..in the light of the Notice of Application for leave to apply for Judicial Review…..and concede that the Respondent acted unlawfully in seeking to make the Order in reliance on section 14…..in order to facilitate the holding of a weekly market and consequently the Order was ultra vires the County Council."
This amounted to a concession that the temporary prohibition procedure was inappropriate. There was a further skirmish in November and December 1998 at a time when the District Council was contemplating temporary closure on two days in the run-up to Christmas by resort to powers in the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 but SSOBT and others dissuaded them from this by a threat of further legal action.
In the meantime, steps were taken with a view to permanent prohibition. A sub-committee of the County Council (No 4 Area Highway Sub-Committee) reconsidered the matter on or about 27 November 1998 and on 2 December 1998 the County Council sent SSOBT copies of a proposal to make an order, adding that the proposal
"is being pursued following representations from Selby District Council to hold a Thursday Market"
The proposal referred to an application for planning permission which had been made by the District Council and described a proposed Traffic Regulation Order restricting vehicular traffic. The Statement of Reasons added
"The County Council, therefore, considers it expedient to make the Order for the following reasons:
(1) For avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road, or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising;
(2) For facilitating the passage on the road of any class of traffic (including pedestrians);
(3) For preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs."
Nor surprisingly, the District Council, as local planning authority, granted planning permission to itself for the relocation of the Thursday Market from Central Car Park to Kirkgate and Westgate on 16 March 1999. The appropriate committee of the County Council considered the matter again and resolved to publish the proposed Traffic Regulation Order and on 19 March 1999 a Notice was published in the local press. In response to the Notice, SSOBT's solicitors and others wrote letters of objection. Detailed correspondence ensued during the period of consultation but on 10 September 1999 the County Council resolved to proceed with the order which was sealed on 1 October 1999 to come into force on 14 October 1999.
The somewhat prolix title of the Order is the North Yorkshire County Council (Prohibition of Driving Except for Access and Revocation of One-Way Traffic Flow) (Kirkgate/Westgate, Tadcaster) Order 1999. I shall henceforth refer to it as "the Order". In its terms, it is stated to have been empowered under section 1(1) and 2(1) to (3) of the 1984 Act. In the present proceedings, SSOBT seek to challenge the Order by way of the statutory procedure prescribed by paragraphs 34–37 of part VI of Schedule 9 of the 1984 Act. On such an application the Court
"if satisfied that the Order, or any provision of the Order, is not within the relevant powers, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by failure to comply with any of the relevant requirements, may quash the Order or any provision of the Order."
(Paragraph 36(1)(b))
No issue arises as to the standing of SSOBT to make such an application. Apart from its brewing activities, it owns properties in the area covered by the Order.
The statutory framework
Section 1(1) of the 1984 Act enables a traffic authority such as the County Council to make a Traffic Regulation Order
"in respect of the road where it appears to the authority…..that it is expedient to make it
(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising; or
……
(c) for facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic (including pedestrian); or…..
(f) for preserving or improving the amenities of the area through which the road runs."
I have omitted reference to (b), (d), (e) and (g) which are not relied upon in the present case. Section 2 sets out provisions which may lawfully be included in a Traffic Regulation Order. Section 3 provides for certain restrictions on Traffic Regulation Orders. In particular, such an order
"shall not be made with respect to any road which would have the effect
(b) of preventing for more than 8 hours in any period of 24 hours access for vehicles of any class,
to any premises situated or adjacent to the road, or to any other premises accessible for…..vehicles of that class, from and only from the road." (Section 3(1).
However, that provision, so far as it relates to vehicles, "shall not have effect" in so far as the authority are satisfied, and it is stated in the Order that they are satisfied, that
"(a) for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road to which the Order relates or any other road, or
(b) for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, or
it is requisite that subsection (1) above should not apply to the Order."
Section 5 makes it a criminal offence to contravene the Order.
Section 122, so far as material, provides as follows:
"(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, so to exercise the functions…..as (so far as practicable having regard to the matters specified in subsection (2) below) to secure the expedient, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway….
(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above as being specified in this subsection are-
(a) the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises;
(b) the effect on the amenities of any locality affected and (without prejudice to the generality of this paragraph) the importance of regulating and restricting the use of roads by heavy commercial vehicles, so as to preserve or improve the amenities of the areas through which the roads run;
(c) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles; and
(d) any other matters appearing to….the local authority…to be relevant."
It will become necessary to refer to other statutory material but these are the central provisions applicable to the making of a Traffic Regulation Order. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sarah Williams (A Representative Claimant for "e17 Streets4all") v London Borough of Waltham Forest
...94 At paragraphs 51 to 54 of AA & Sons (supra), Green J followed the approach taken by Maurice Kay J in Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v North Yorkshire County Council (19 April 2000) in endorsing the adequacy of reasons which were very much briefer than those given in the present cas......