Surrey County Council v Williams (t/a Garden Materials Landscaping)

On an appeal confined to a question of law, the court will not overturn concurrent specialist decisions on the suitability of an operating centre merely because a different assessment of road safety evidence or technical guidance is possible. Under the Goods and Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, suitability is a contextual and discretionary assessment. Guidance for new road accesses may be relevant, but does not dictate the outcome for an existing access with limited proposed use. The decision-maker may take account of enforceable conditions directed to preventing danger. Perversity requires a decision which no reasonable specialist tribunal could reach; it is not established by inviting the appellate court to substitute its own view of the facts.

A goods-vehicle operator sought a restricted licence for two tipper vehicles operating from Perry Farm. Surrey County Council objected, contending that the access to the B2028 had inadequate sight lines and that additional vehicle movements would create an unacceptable safety risk.

The Traffic Commissioner inspected the site and granted the licence subject to conditions on vehicle size, direction of travel and forward-gear movements, together with an undertaking limiting daily movements. The Transport Tribunal upheld that decision on 19 December 2001.

The council appealed to the Court of Appeal, which could entertain the appeal only on a question of law. Its sole substantive contention was that the concurrent decisions were perverse because the operating centre could not properly be regarded as suitable.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Rix LJ, with whom Laws LJ and Simon Brown LJ agreed, held that the council had identified no error of law and had not established perversity.
2. Under section 13(5)(d) of the Goods and Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, whether an operating centre is suitable is a matter for the Traffic Commissioner and, on appeal, the Transport Tribunal. The assessment was discretionary and fact-sensitive. Neither body was required to treat Design Bulletin 32 guidance for new accesses as decisive for an established access.
3. The Commissioner and Tribunal were entitled to give weight to the limited proposed use, the absence of accidents connected with the access, the defects in the council's swept-path evidence, the Commissioner's site visit, and the conditions and undertaking imposed. Section 13(9), read with section 21, permitted the Commissioner to take account of conditions designed to prevent danger and to assume compliance with them.
4. The fact that conditions were imposed did not contradict the express finding that the access was suitable. Conditions could be imposed to prevent danger without a finding that there would otherwise be a realistic risk of danger.
5. Per Laws LJ, the delayed written reasons were regrettable, but the point gave rise to no substantive ground of appeal. Per Simon Brown LJ, a perversity appeal will rarely succeed where two specialist bodies have reached concurrent factual conclusions within their respective expertise.

The licence therefore remained in force subject to its conditions and undertaking.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the council's appeal on a question of law: [2003] EWCA Civ 599.
• Transport Tribunal — on 19 December 2001, upheld the Traffic Commissioner's grant of the restricted operator's licence.
• Traffic Commissioner for the South Eastern and Metropolitan Traffic Area — on 14 September 2001, granted the licence subject to conditions and an undertaking.