Shamim Anwar v London Borough of Ealing Council

Where a highway authority constructs a vehicle crossing under section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980, the request may be made by any person. The authority has a broad discretion to approve, modify, replace or reject the proposed works, subject to having regard to the statutory factors and acting rationally. The provision does not require the consent or consultation of an adjoining owner or occupier who is not the requester and is not liable to contribute to the cost. The statutory objection procedure applies to persons served with notices under section 184(1) or (3), principally because they may be required to pay. A crossover constructed in the public highway does not itself authorise trespass on adjoining private land.

The appellant, a long leaseholder, challenged the Council’s refusal to remove a vehicle crossover constructed in the public highway outside neighbouring properties. The crossover had been built in 2015 or 2016 following the neighbouring owner’s request and payment, without the appellant’s consent.

Permission for judicial review was granted on one ground: that the Council had allegedly failed to consider whether the crossover had been unlawfully constructed. The High Court held that section 184 and Schedule 14 of the Highways Act 1980 did not require the neighbouring owner’s consent and found no flaw in the Chief Executive’s decision-making: [2022] EWHC 2464 (KB). The central issues on appeal were the construction of section 184 and whether the interpretation advanced by the appellant engaged A1P1 or section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

1. Appeal dismissed. The only surviving judicial review ground was bound to fail because the 2015 construction decision had never been quashed. It therefore had to be treated as lawful when the Chief Executive made the 2021 decision. The claim could have been dismissed without determining the original decision’s legality.
2. Nevertheless, the court determined the statutory construction issues. Section 184(11) of the Highways Act 1980 permits a request by any person for works constructing a vehicle crossing over a footway or verge in the public highway. The subsection contains no requirement that the requester own or occupy premises adjoining the highway, or that the crossing serve only one legal estate.
3. The highway authority has an absolute discretion under section 184(11) to approve the request with or without modification, propose alternative works or reject it. It must have regard to the matters in section 184(5), including prevention of damage and, so far as practicable, safe access and egress and the passage of vehicular traffic. Those criteria are non-exhaustive, and the authority may consider other material matters subject to rationality.
4. The statutory distinction between “any person” in subsection (11) and owners or occupiers of premises in subsections (1), (3) and (7) is deliberate. Under subsections (1) and (3), notices and the Schedule 14 objection procedure concern persons exposed to compulsory financial contributions. A neighbouring owner who is not served with such a notice has no statutory right to object, and there is no statutory requirement to obtain that person’s consent. The Council’s practice of seeking neighbouring consent was good practice, not law.
5. “Premises” has the wide meaning supplied by section 329, namely land and buildings, and can encompass multiple buildings or self-contained units. “A vehicle crossing” describes a crossing for vehicles; its dimensions, design and location are for the highway authority to specify.
6. The interpretation does not engage A1P1. The works are undertaken in the public highway and do not interfere with ownership or control of adjoining land. Nor do they authorise or encourage trespass. Any trespass remains subject to ordinary private-law rights.
7. The crossover was lawfully constructed and the Judge was right to find that the Council acted lawfully. Lords Justice Lewis and Holgate agreed with Lady Justice Andrews.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the conclusion that the crossover was lawfully constructed and that the Council’s refusal to remove it was not unlawful: [2025] EWCA Civ 813.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that section 184 and Schedule 14 of the Highways Act 1980 did not require the neighbouring owner’s consent and found no flaw in the Chief Executive’s evaluative exercise: [2022] EWHC 2464 (KB).
• Permission stage — Permission for judicial review was granted on one ground only, namely the alleged failure to consider the crossover’s supposed unlawfulness. The other pleaded grounds were refused.