Glowzone Ltd, R (on the application of) v Brighton & Hove City Council

A public authority may adopt a policy to allocate scarce parking permits, but it must retain a genuine discretion to consider exceptional cases. The policy must be operated fairly and rationally. Where historic implementation gives some users substantially more permits than others, the authority must consider whether transitional arrangements are needed to remedy that inequality once the deficiency is brought to its attention. A rigid refusal based solely on the existing policy may therefore be unlawful. The appropriate remedy may be declaratory where the policy has since been replaced. An applicant is not entitled to obtain additional permits merely because another organisation may have received too many.

Glowzone Ltd sought judicial review of Brighton and Hove City Council’s refusal to grant it eight Traders’ Parking Permits. The refusal applied a policy limiting each trader to two permits. During the proceedings, the Council replaced that policy with one permitting up to six permits per trader, and Glowzone did not challenge the lawfulness of the new policy.

The claim also raised complaints about the treatment of another organisation, BFA, alleged reliance on later Parking Contravention Notices, and compensation under Article 1 of Protocol 1. The central issues were whether the former policy and the decision applying it were unlawful, and what relief remained appropriate after the policy had changed.

1. Declarations. The policy operated before 26 January 2008 was unlawful, and the decision letter dated 26 October 2007 was unlawful insofar as it relied on that policy. The court granted declaratory relief but refused further relief.
2. Lawfulness of the policy. The Council was entitled in principle to restrict the number of permits because demand exceeded supply and it had to balance the interests of traders, residents and others. A waiting-list system was also lawful in principle, as was distinguishing between renewal and fresh applications.
3. Fair and rational administration. By October 2007, the historic operation of the scheme was indefensible. Early applicants, including BFA, had retained large numbers of permits while later applicants were limited to two. Once the deficiencies were identified, the Council was required at least to consider suitable transitional arrangements, including whether excessive historic allocations should be reduced and redistributed. Its failure to do so rendered the policy, and the decision letter applying it, unlawful.
4. Discretion and exceptions. The Council had to keep the possibility of exceptions open, but Glowzone’s possession of eight vehicles was not an exceptional circumstance requiring eight permits. Nor did any alleged favourable treatment of BFA entitle Glowzone to additional permits: two errors would not establish a right to a further allocation.
5. Other relief. Any challenge to individual Parking Contravention Notices had to be brought through the statutory appeal route or promptly by judicial review. The court refused declaratory relief concerning the notices and refused compensation, as the alleged harm was insufficiently particularised and the comparison with BFA could not fairly be assessed without BFA’s participation.
6. The new policy, which applied the six-permit limit equally to existing and new traders, addressed the identified defect and was not itself challenged. The court made no order as to costs.