AA & Sons Ltd v Slough Borough Council
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE GREEN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
- Human Rights Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case is a statutory review of four TROs adopted by Slough Borough Council in 2012, which impacted local roads and had effects on the Claimant's supermarket. The Claimant brought several objections, chiefly contesting SBC's consultative process, the treatment of objections, and the sufficiency of provided reasons. Moreover, challenges included the failure to trial Cayley Road West options and the decision not to hold a public inquiry, alleging Article 6 rights violations. The court ruled in favor of SBC on all issues, affirming the legality and adequacy of the council's consultation, reasoning, and decision-making process.
Mr Justice Green :
A. Introduction
This is a statutory review pursuant to section 124 and Schedule 9 paragraph 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“ RTRA ”) in relation to four traffic regulation orders (“TROs”) adopted by Slough Borough Council (“SBC”) in 2012 which concern four roads in a largely residential area within the Slough conurbation. The four roads are: Chalvey Road West, Chalvey Road East, Ragstone Road and Ledgers Road. SBC made the TROs on the 20 November 2012 in its capacity as the traffic authority.
The Claimant operates a supermarket on Chalvey Road West and is concerned about the impact of the orders on local trade. The Claimant has advanced a substantial number of objections to the adoption of the TROs. In particular it submits: that SBC failed to have regard to or treat the Claimants’ written submissions and objections as relevant; that the consultative exercise conducted by SBC prior to adoption of the TROs was inadequate; that SBC failed to give proper reasons for making the TROs; that SBC failed to have any or any proper regard to the “A4 Brunel Heart of Slough” project that was on-going throughout the period during which the TROs were being trialled; that SBC failed to act upon evidence in rejecting a recommendation from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee that a trialling of Chalvey Road West returning to two way operation should be undertaken before the TROs were made permanent; that SBC failed to trial different options for Chalvey Road West in breach of a legitimate expectation that they would do so; and finally that SBC failed to give proper or lawful consideration to the holding of a public enquiry into the making of the TROs.
B. The facts
The roads in issue have proven problematic over a lengthy period of time. They have been used as a “rat run” between the A4 and M4 corridors. This has created an unacceptably high incidence of accidents including involving pedestrians and has led to increased pollution as a result of an increase in stationary traffic. A survey conducted in 2009 of the views of local residents in Chalvey identified, inter alia, as priorities for the area: an improvement of provision for parking; an improvement in the appearance of the streets; and, changes to roads to deter rat running and in order to reduce accidents.
In August 2011 SBC introduced a number of experimental TROs. These had the effect of making a series of roads within the Chalvey area one way for their entire length. The statement