Anand & Anor v Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea

The claim was a statutory review under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 of a Traffic Management Order (the No. 5 Order) extending resident-only parking control hours in the Queensdale Road area. The court treated the challenge as a public law review, not a merits appeal. Key legal principles applied were (i) the limited scope of a Schedule 9 statutory review, (ii) the requirements of lawful consultation, (iii) the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and (iv) the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The court concluded that the statutory consultation complied with the Procedure Regulations and was not unlawfully inadequate. The Claimants failed to establish a clear, unambiguous promise giving rise to a legitimate expectation of further consultation or a moratorium; contemporaneous council notes and subsequent emails did not support the Claimants' version. The Equality Impact Assessment and officer report showed that the council had identified and considered the impact on protected groups (age and disability), applied the statutory criteria and weighed competing interests; any further data was not necessary to discharge the duty in the circumstances. Finally, the complaint of irrationality (that occupancy indicated available spaces and that a few resident concerns outweighed congregational needs) failed: the council's assessment of occupancy and prioritisation of residents was rational. The claim was dismissed.

The claimants, trustees of a central London Gurdwara, sought judicial review under paragraph 35, Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 challenging the No. 5 Order extending resident parking controls into evenings and Sundays. They alleged (i) unlawful consultation and a frustrated legitimate expectation of further consultation (a moratorium or an express promise of a meeting before decision), (ii) failure to comply with the public sector equality duty in respect of elderly and disabled worshippers, and (iii) irrationality in the council's decision-making.

Nature of the claim/application: statutory review of a traffic management order, seeking quashing of the No. 5 Order and interim relief (the interim order had earlier been suspended pending this judgment).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the consultation complied with statutory requirements and/or gave rise to a common-law legitimate expectation of further consultation before a decision;
• Whether the council complied with the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) when making its decision;
• Whether the council's decision was irrational.

Court's reasoning:

• Consultation: the statutory consultation complied with the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996; the court applied established authorities on consultation (eg, Moseley, Greenpeace) and rejected the argument that the form and scope of the consultation were unlawfully inadequate. The court held that an allegation of common-law unfairness could only succeed where there was a clear promise or where the consultation was radically defective; that standard was not met.
• Legitimate expectation: the Claimants bore the burden of proving a clear, unambiguous promise to consult further or to impose a moratorium. Contemporaneous council notes and emails showed only that the council would reconsider issues and might meet; they did not establish the requisite promise. The Claimants' inconsistent recollections and lack of contemporaneous notes undermined their case, so the legitimate expectation claim failed.
• Equality duty: the council carried out an Equality Impact Assessment and incorporated its findings into the officer report. The court held the council had given due regard to age and disability impacts, identified mitigation (increased blue badge provision to be discussed), and rationally weighed residents' and visitors' interests. The decision did not amount to a breach of s.149.
• Irrationality: the council’s assessment of occupancy (notional 80% at relevant times), and its decision to prioritise residents, were within the range of rational judgments. The specific irrationality accusations were rejected.

The court therefore dismissed the claim.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the statutory consultation complied with the Procedure Regulations and was not unlawfully inadequate; the Claimants did not establish a clear, unambiguous promise giving rise to a legitimate expectation of further consultation or a moratorium; the council complied with the public sector equality duty in substance and applied the statutory criteria; and the decision to extend parking controls was not irrational.