Djanogly v City of Westminster

Parking powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 must be exercised for the statutory purposes of traffic management and the provision of suitable parking facilities. They cannot be used, primarily or secondarily, to raise general revenue or revenue for the purposes listed in section 55(4). Charges may nevertheless produce a surplus and may be set at a level which manages demand, encourages off-street parking, balances competing classes of users, or reflects periods of high demand. Budgeting for a surplus does not itself establish an improper purpose. Consultation requires a genuine opportunity to make representations and a receptive consideration of reasonable arguments; it does not require a head count or acceptance of objections.

The claimant, chairman of a campaign group opposing motorcycle parking charges, brought a CPR Part 8 challenge to three parking orders made by Westminster City Council on 18 January 2010 under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. He alleged that the Council had acted for the ulterior purpose of raising revenue, that officers had misled decision-makers about the financial consequences, and that consultation had been inadequate. The claim concerned the statutory purpose of charging for on-street motorcycle parking and the sufficiency of the Council’s consideration of objections.

1. Statutory purpose. The claim was dismissed. The court followed the construction in Cran v Camden London Borough Council [1995] RTR 346. Section 45 was not a general revenue-raising power. The relevant purposes were those in section 122, including securing the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and suitable and adequate parking facilities.
2. Permissible charging. The authority was not required to set charges only to cover the immediate cost of providing on-street parking. Charges could be used to ration scarce kerb-side space, encourage off-street parking, balance competing classes of motorists, and reflect demand. The authority could not introduce charges, or set their level, for the primary or secondary purpose of raising section 55(4) revenue.
3. Application. Westminster had legitimate objectives: increasing motorcycle parking provision to meet actual and anticipated demand, balancing motorcycles against other users of finite kerb-side space, and improving security. The evidence supported continuing demand. Reassigning and extending parking bays, together with charging and free off-street provision, fell within the statutory purposes. A modest or unexpected surplus did not itself make the scheme ultra vires. The reduction of charges after the experimental scheme produced more income than forecast was an appropriate response.
4. Decision-making and consultation. The evidence did not establish that officers had concealed the financial position or that members had decided on a mistaken belief that the scheme would be revenue-neutral. Consultation required receptiveness to reasonable argument, but not a numerical comparison of supporters and opponents. The Council analysed the objections, responded to their substance, and amended the scheme, including by reducing charges and increasing security provision.