Anand & Anor v Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea

A statutory review of a traffic management order is confined to public-law grounds. It does not permit the court to reconsider the merits of the parking policy. Where statutory consultation has been lawfully undertaken, a wider common-law consultation duty generally requires a clear promise or established practice. A legitimate expectation based on a promised procedure requires a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation, proved objectively. The public sector equality duty is procedural: the decision-maker must be properly and conscientiously informed about the statutory criteria before deciding, but the duty does not require a particular outcome. A local authority may balance the needs of residents and non-residents and reach a polycentric parking decision, provided its reasoning is rational and the statutory duties are discharged.

The claimants, trustees of a Gurdwara in Queensdale Road, sought statutory review under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. They challenged the Council’s Traffic Management Order extending residents’ parking controls into weekday evenings and weekends.

The pleaded grounds were failure to consult, breach of a legitimate expectation of further consultation, breach of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and irrationality. At the hearing, the claimants accepted that the statutory consultation was lawful and relied principally on the alleged promise of further consultation, the equality duty and irrationality. The central questions were whether the Council had lawfully proceeded to make the Order and whether its assessment of worshippers, residents, disability, age and available parking was legally sufficient.

1. Outcome. The statutory review claim was dismissed. The court had jurisdiction to review legality, but not the merits of the Council’s parking decision.
2. Consultation. The statutory consultation complied with the applicable procedure. Given that conclusion, there was limited scope for a wider common-law consultation duty absent a clear promise or established practice. The Council had a broad discretion over the form and content of consultation. The information supplied about places of worship and affected services was not so inadequate or unfair as to make the consultation unlawful. The test was whether anything had gone clearly and radically wrong.
3. Legitimate expectation. The claimants failed to prove a clear, unambiguous and unqualified promise that no decision would be made until they had been consulted further at a meeting. The contemporaneous notes showed only that the Council would consider the issues further and explore possible compromises. Later emails proposing meetings did not establish an existing moratorium or promise. The claimants’ delay in offering dates also undermined the asserted unfairness.
4. Public sector equality duty. The Council’s report and Equality Impact Analysis showed a proper and conscientious focus on age, disability and religion. It was not necessary to identify the precise number of elderly or disabled worshippers. The Council was entitled to regard the available information as sufficient, to take residents’ needs into account, and to decide that further blue-badge provision could be discussed after the decision.
5. Irrationality. The Council was entitled to treat an approximately 80 per cent occupancy rate and significant non-resident parking as evidence supporting extended controls. It rationally prioritised residents’ parking needs over those of non-residents. Disagreement with that policy judgment did not establish irrationality.

The claim was dismissed.