Background
North Somerset Council decided to make a traffic regulation order (TRO) to introduce parking charges at three car parks in Clevedon that had previously been free to use. The decision was part of a broader Parking Management Strategy aimed at making parking services self-financing to address significant budget shortfalls and rising maintenance costs. The Council argued that the charges were necessary to ensure it could continue providing parking facilities and to prevent cuts to essential statutory services.
The Council conducted a multi-stage consultation process. It began with a non-statutory public consultation to gather general feedback on its strategy and the proposal to introduce charges. Following this, it commenced the formal statutory consultation required to make the TRO. The claimant, Daniel Adams, a local business manager representing the “Clevedon Business Community Group,” submitted written objections to the proposed charges during this formal period.
After the statutory consultation closed, the responsible Cabinet Member considered the objections received and decided to proceed with making the TRO. However, due to an admitted administrative error by the Council, the claimant’s objections were not included in the report and were therefore not considered by the decision-maker. Mr. Adams challenged the validity of the TRO in court, arguing the decision was unlawful on several grounds, most notably the failure of the consultation process.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court found in favour of the claimant, ruling that the Council’s decision-making process was unlawful. The judgment focused on the Council’s admitted failure to consider the claimant’s objections during the statutory consultation. The Council acknowledged that, due to an internal error, Mr. Adams’s consultation responses were not provided to the Cabinet Member who made the final decision to implement the parking charges.
The court held that this omission was a significant breach of the procedural requirements set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. The purpose of statutory consultation is to allow decision-makers to be informed of public views and objections before making a final decision. By failing to consider a properly submitted objection, the Council had acted unlawfully and undermined the integrity of the consultation process. While the claimant had raised other grounds of challenge, including that the Council’s primary purpose was improper revenue generation, the court’s decision rested on the clear and undisputed procedural failure.
The court also clarified a preliminary procedural issue, confirming that the challenge was correctly brought as a statutory review under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Because the TRO cited a power (s.32) that falls under the statutory review scheme, that procedure was the exclusive means of challenge, even if other powers cited in the order do not.
Key Takeaways
- Local authorities must strictly adhere to statutory consultation procedures when creating Traffic Regulation Orders.
- A failure to consider a validly submitted objection during a statutory consultation period is a serious procedural error that can render the resulting decision unlawful.
- Conducting a prior, non-statutory consultation does not excuse or remedy defects in a subsequent, mandatory formal consultation process.
- When a council order is made under multiple statutory powers, if any one of those powers triggers a statutory review process, that becomes the exclusive and correct route for a legal challenge.
Why It Matters
This decision is a crucial reminder that public bodies must follow lawful and transparent processes, especially when making decisions that have a direct financial impact on residents and local businesses. It underscores that even when facing financial pressures, councils cannot cut corners on their statutory duties. The ruling affirms that public consultation is not a mere box-ticking exercise but a fundamental aspect of fair and accountable governance. It empowers citizens and community groups by showing that their participation in formal consultations is a legally protected right, and that courts will intervene to uphold that right if their input is ignored.