Richards, R (On the Application Of) v Pembrokeshire County Council

Harbour powers may lawfully regulate parking outside the immediate harbour where the authority reasonably considers that parking has a direct effect on access to, and the operation of, the harbour. The power must still be used for the statutory purpose of harbour management. A measure adopted for a manifestly ulterior purpose may be unlawful. A parking-control scheme was not irrational merely because it reduced spaces or affected claimed private parking arrangements. An asserted proprietary interest, unresolved in judicial review proceedings, did not amount to a possession for the purposes of Article 1 of the First Protocol.

The claimants owned holiday flats adjoining a raised terrace in Tenby. Pembrokeshire County Council made Directions under the South Pembrokeshire District Council (Tenby Harbour) Byelaws 1995 to control parking and allocate permits in the harbour area, including the terrace.

The claimants challenged the Directions as ultra vires, irrational and incompatible with Article 1 of the First Protocol. They also disputed ownership of the terrace and whether it was a public highway. The court therefore determined the statutory-power issue without resolving those proprietary and highway disputes.

1. The court allowed the claimants to amend their grounds to raise the argument that the Directions were outside the statutory power. The amendment caused no unfairness or prejudice.

2. The 1975 Revision Order placed the raised terrace within the defined harbour estate. Article 22(j) authorised byelaws regulating the movement, speed and parking of vehicles within the harbour. The claimants could not use the present proceedings to challenge the geographical scope of the Revision Order, particularly in view of section 44 of the Harbours Act 1964.

3. The power remained subject to purpose. Directions under byelaws 23 and 25 had to relate to the operation and management of the harbour, rather than an unrelated purpose such as general town-centre traffic control. However, areas near the harbour could directly affect its operation. The Council was entitled to conclude that congestion and parking on the terrace affected access, vehicular movement and pedestrian safety in the harbour area. The Directions were therefore within power.

4. The decision was not Wednesbury unreasonable. The Council sought to improve parking control and access to the harbour. The fact that the scheme reduced parking spaces, or that the claimants had previously managed parking without apparent disruption, did not make the decision irrational.

5. No issue arose under Article 1 of the First Protocol. The court could not resolve the competing proprietary claims in judicial review proceedings. The claimants’ unsupported assertions of ownership did not constitute a possession, although the autonomous meaning of possession was recognised.

6. The application was dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment. Permission was granted for the amended grounds and reliance on the witness statements. Permission to appeal was refused, the claimants being required to seek permission from the appellate court.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. The judgment does not state any earlier decision in the same litigation.