AA & Sons Ltd v Slough Borough Council

In reviewing a traffic regulation order, the court applies a fact- and context-sensitive margin of discretion. A local authority must address the statutory purposes of the order, consider properly made objections, and have regard to mandatory matters such as reasonable access to premises, parking and air quality. It need not undertake exhaustive analysis of every issue or treat consultation as a referendum. A concise statement of reasons may suffice when read in context and may indicate that the reasons supporting an experimental order remain valid for its permanent adoption. A public inquiry is ordinarily discretionary; failure to hold one is unlawful only in unusual or exceptional circumstances. A legitimate expectation requires an unequivocal promise by an authorised decision-maker.

The claimant, which operated a supermarket in Chalvey, sought statutory review under section 124 and Schedule 9 paragraph 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It challenged four permanent traffic regulation orders made by Slough Borough Council on 20 November 2012 after experimental one-way arrangements, consultation, objections and consideration by the Council’s Cabinet.

The grounds alleged inadequate consultation, failure to consider objections and relevant matters, insufficient reasons, failure to account for concurrent road works, breach of legitimate expectation, failure to hold a public inquiry, and breach of article 6. The central issues were whether the statutory and procedural requirements had been met and whether the Council’s decisions fell outside its lawful discretion.

The statutory review was dismissed. The traffic regulation orders remained in force.

1. Review standard. The lawfulness of the orders fell to be assessed by reference to sections 1, 2, 9, 122 and 124 and Schedule 9 paragraph 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, together with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The decision-maker had a wide, fact- and context-dependent margin, including in relation to consultation methods, the weighing of competing considerations and the depth of investigation required.
2. Objections and consultation. Although many objections concerned the earlier experimental orders, the Council had reopened consultation without expressly limiting it to modifications. The objections therefore had to be considered. They were in fact addressed on their merits, so the Council had not unlawfully ignored them. The questionnaire and consultation were comprehensive and effective. A consultation was not a referendum, and the Cabinet was entitled to consider headline results together with detailed comments.
3. Mandatory considerations. The Cabinet had regard to reasonable access to premises, parking, traffic movement, safety and air quality. It was entitled to reach an informed qualitative view that reducing traffic would reduce pollution without commissioning exhaustive quantitative research. The adverse effect on local businesses did not make the orders unlawful where the competing interests had been balanced.
4. Reasons and other grounds. The concise statement of reasons was adequate when read in context as referring to the continuing validity of the reasons for the experimental scheme. Concurrent Heart of Slough works were considered and did not require delay. No unequivocal promise created a legitimate expectation that specified alternatives would be trialled. The discretionary refusal to hold a public inquiry was not irrational in the circumstances; unusual or exceptional facts would have been required. Article 6 was not engaged because the adoption of traffic orders was a broad public-interest decision too remote from individual civil rights.

First-instance statutory review in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision in the same proceedings is stated in the judgment.