Williams v Devon County Council

For regulation 9(3)(b) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, a restriction may arise where a traffic order prevents public service vehicles using their ordinary route and requires a longer, more convoluted journey, even though the destination remains accessible. The question is objective and concerns the order’s effect on public service vehicles generally, not the timetable or chosen route of one operator. Restriction is not limited to physical barriers; one-way rules and other controls on movement may qualify. Where the statutory conditions are met and the relevant operator objects, a public inquiry is required.

Devon County Council made an experimental traffic order and then a permanent traffic regulation order reversing traffic flows in parts of Totnes. The changes required the community service known as Bob the Bus to take longer circuits when serving Fore Street and High Street. Local residents challenged the order under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The High Court quashed it, holding that a public inquiry was required under regulation 9 and, obiter, that section 122 had also been breached. The Council appealed on claimant substitution, the meaning of restrict, and section 122.

Decision

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court unanimously upheld the order quashing the traffic regulation order.
2. Under Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judge was entitled to substitute Ms Williams as claimant. She was a member of the group that had commenced the proceedings and should have been named at the outset. The procedural rules exist to enable the court to resolve the dispute, rather than create unnecessary technical obstacles.
3. The statutory term restrict in regulation 9 was given its natural meaning. The assessment is objective and must consider the effect of the traffic order on public service vehicles generally. It is not confined to the timetable or selected route of Bob the Bus, although that service illustrated the order’s practical effect.
4. A restriction is not confined to a physical barrier. Controls on waiting, parking, vehicle length and direction of travel may qualify. In particular, rules requiring vehicles to use a one-way system and take an extremely circuitous route restrict passage along a road, even where vehicles can still reach all relevant destinations.
5. Since the order restricted the passage of public service vehicles and the other statutory conditions were satisfied, regulation 9 required a public inquiry before the order was made. That conclusion was fatal to the appeal. The court expressly declined to decide the section 122 issue because it had not been argued and was unnecessary to the result.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2016] EWCA Civ 419, the appeal was unanimously dismissed.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court — His Honour Judge Cotter QC quashed the traffic regulation order, holding that regulation 9 required a public inquiry and, obiter, that section 122 had also been breached.