Parking charges – Motorcycles – Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 – Respondent council introducing charges for on-street motorcycle parking under section 45 of 1984 Act – Charges part of scheme for increasing provision of on- and off-street motorcycle parking to meet increased demand – Whether scheme falling outside relevant statutory power – Whether introduced to secure permissible traffic management benefits under section 122 of 1984 Act – Whether flawed by miscalculations as to projected costs and revenue resulting in surplus funds – Appeal dismissed
The appellant was the chairman of a campaign group that opposed motorcycle parking charges introduced by the respondent council in January 2010 pursuant to a parking order under section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. There was a daily charge of £1 roadside parking, with provision for discounted weekly, monthly and annual rates. Off-street spaces could be used for free. Increased numbers of both roadside spaces and off-street spaces were provided.
The appellant brought proceedings, under CPR 8 and section 36 of the 1984 Act, to challenge the validity of the orders. He contended that the respondents had exceeded their powers under the Act by using them for a purpose that was not permitted by the statute, namely the raising of revenue. The claim was dismissed in the court below; the court found that the respondents had validly introduced the parking order to secure the statutory traffic management benefits specified in section 122 of the 1984 Act, since the order was aimed at: (i) improving on-street parking availability for motorcyclists to meet increased and anticipated demand; and (ii) ending discriminatory treatment between motorcycles and cars: see [2010] EWHC 1825 (Admin); [2010] PLSCS 204. It held that the order was not rendered improper by virtue of the fact that surplus revenue was generated. The court also rejected a further ground as to a lack of adequate consultation prior to the making of the order.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the court’s conclusions in relation to the surplus revenue. He contended that the 2010 order was vitiated by flaws in the various reports that had preceded it, in which the respondents had consistently overstated the projected cost of the scheme and understated the projected revenue. Permission to appeal on the consultation ground was refused.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Evidence of increasing demand for parking would justify charging since it was the obvious way to dampen excess demand. The respondents had a rational basis for their view that demand was increasing. So far as the order secured a traffic management benefit by reference to actual and anticipated increased demand, the question of fairness between motorcyclists and car drivers was a matter of legitimate concern to the respondent. Moreover, the desire to achieve fairness between the two groups was itself sufficient to justify the order. In exercising their powers under section 122(1), for the aim of providing provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway, the respondents were required by section 122(2) to have regard to all matters that appeared to them to be relevant. They were entitled to regard the spreading of cost fairly between the two groups of users as a legitimate concern under section 122.
There was no statutory requirement of revenue neutrality although, where a surplus arose in an accounting period, section 55 imposed restrictions on the ways in which the surplus could be used. The 2010 order was not vitiated by any errors involving overestimation of the projected cost of the parking scheme or underestimation of that revenue that it would generate. The financial material in the relevant reports was no more than forecasting, assembled in good faith. Most of the errors or miscalculations in the forecasts had subsequently been corrected and explained. If others remained, they were not of a nature or quality such as to vitiate the 2010 order. The ultimate decision-maker had not been materially misled. If it now transpired that the net revenue was significantly higher than was anticipated, it was open to the respondents to reduce the charges.
Philip Coppel QC and Heather Emmerson (instructed by Khakhar & Co) appeared for the appellant; Nathalie Lieven QC and Jacequeline Lean (instructed by the legal department of Westminster City Council) appeared for the respondents.
