Chaumeton v The London Borough of Camden

A local authority may impose parking charges to manage demand, reduce traffic and emissions, and address related transport problems. The authority must not use parking charges for the purpose of raising additional revenue. That prohibition does not require the scheme to be revenue-neutral. A surplus, or the fact that income exceeds administrative costs, does not by itself establish an improper purpose. The court must determine the authority’s true purpose from the evidence, including the stated policy objectives and decision-making documents.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by the London Borough of Camden to increase and alter resident, business and visitor parking charges. Permission had been granted by Arden LJ. The claimant argued principally that the charges were imposed to raise additional revenue, and also challenged consultation, transparency, the decision-making process, tariff changes and the use of surplus income.

The central issue was whether Camden’s purpose was the impermissible purpose of raising additional revenue. The court also considered whether further consultation was required under the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

1. Improper purpose. The claim failed on the central issue. There was no evidence that Camden’s purpose was to raise additional revenue. The evidence instead showed that the increases and changes were directed to managing private vehicle traffic, congestion, emissions and demand for limited kerbspace.
2. Revenue neutrality not required. The statutory restriction on using parking charges to raise additional revenue did not require a parking scheme to be revenue-neutral. A scheme addressing traffic-related problems could properly produce a substantial surplus. The fact that income was projected to exceed costs, or that a surplus was budgeted or likely, was not determinative of an improper purpose. The court relied on R (Djanogly) v Westminster City Council [2011] RTR 9 at [14].
3. Evidence of purpose. The court accepted the assurance in the October 2011 Update that financial consequences were not the driver of the changes, and the corresponding explanation in the finance director’s report. References to savings in a borough-wide financial report did not alter that conclusion.
4. Additional grounds. The transparency complaint failed because the claimant had sufficient knowledge of the proposals and they were later advertised in detail. The higher tariff had been considered and approved through the decision-making process. Earlier consultation was adequate. The additional consultation cases in paragraph 6 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 were not shown to be engaged.
5. The challenge to the treatment of surplus income also failed. The evidence stated that the surplus was applied to highway and traffic improvement and maintenance, concessionary fares, and home-to-school transport, and no contravention of the relevant guidance or section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 was established. The judicial review therefore failed.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.