Surrey County Council v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

A statutory consultation duty must be fulfilled before the relevant order is made, but the legislation may permit consultation to occur alongside the process for public objections. The court should assess the consultation in substance and avoid a mechanistic approach. A local authority has a broad evaluative discretion as to the evidence required, the intensity of inquiry and the weight given to competing traffic, safety and amenity considerations. The authority must nevertheless consider highly material effects, including the displacement of traffic onto other roads. A statement of reasons for a proposed traffic order may be concise if it identifies why the order is proposed. Relief for procedural non-compliance requires substantial prejudice.

Surrey County Council, the traffic authority for Surrey, challenged a weight-restriction order made by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead concerning part of Chobham Road in Sunningdale. The order reduced the existing restriction from 18 tonnes to 7.5 tonnes.

The challenge alleged failure to consult under regulation 6 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996, failure to consider sufficient evidence, failure to consider alternative routes and their effects, and failure to provide adequate reasons. The central issues were whether the consultation was lawful, whether the evidence and inquiries were sufficient, and whether the Defendant had lawfully assessed the consequences of diverting heavy goods vehicles.

1. Outcome. The challenge was dismissed. None of the four grounds established that the Order was unlawful or that the Claimant had suffered the substantial prejudice required for relief under Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
2. Consultation. Regulation 6 required consultation to be completed before the Order was made. It imposed a separate obligation from the publication and objection procedures under regulations 7, 8 and 13. However, it did not prescribe a particular form or require consultation before publication of the proposed Order. Applying the approach in R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] 1 WLR 3947, the court had to consider the process in substance and avoid a mechanistic approach. The documents sent to the Claimant, the opportunity to comment and object, the later councillors’ meeting, and the cabinet’s consideration together amounted to genuine consultation. The decision-makers retained an open mind and took the Claimant’s concerns into account.
3. Evidence and inquiry. The Defendant had ample evidence, including the bridge’s physical characteristics, vehicle surveys, local reports and consultation responses, on which to assess the safety risk. The extent and character of the evidence required, and the intensity of inquiry into relevant matters, were principally for the local decision-maker. The court would not substitute its view unless the decision was irrational, unfair or otherwise unlawful.
4. Alternative routes. The effect of diverted heavy goods vehicles on other roads was a material consideration. It had been identified and addressed in the report and decision. The Defendant was entitled to conclude, on the evidence available, that further investigation of traffic-management measures in Surrey was unnecessary. That conclusion was not irrational or unfair.
5. Reasons. Schedule 2, paragraph 2 of the 1996 Regulations required a statement explaining why the authority proposed to make the Order. The statement adequately identified the safety concern and the intended reduction in heavy goods vehicle traffic. It was not necessary to provide a lengthy analysis, and no relevant prejudice was shown.