Williams & Ors (The Sustainable Totnes Action Group) v Devon County Council

Williams & Ors (The Sustainable Totnes Action Group) v Devon County Council

The order is quashed because the defendant failed to hold a public inquiry as required by regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations, which was a mandatory procedural requirement given the restriction on public service vehicles and the existence of relevant objections. This failure caused substantial prejudice to the applicant's interests. The claimant had standing as an unincorporated association at the time of issue. Even if the public inquiry requirement had not been triggered, the defendant's failure to demonstrate a proper section 122 balancing exercise would have rendered the order susceptible to challenge.

Parties
Claimant: Jane Sarah Williams (representative for Sustainable Totnes Action Group); Defendant: Devon County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Statutory Application Under Paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Order quashed
Legal Topics
Standing of Unincorporated Associations, Traffic Regulation Orders, Public Inquiry Requirements, Section 122 Balancing Duty, Judicial Review Principles, Consultation Obligations
Administrative Law Local Government Law Transport Law Standing of Unincorporated Associations Traffic Regulation Orders Public Inquiry Requirements Section 122 Balancing Duty Judicial Review Principles +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Sarah Williams (representative for Sustainable Totnes Action Group)

Claimant

Devon County Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Application Under Paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had standing as a 'person' under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 at the time of issuing proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the defendant failed to comply with statutory requirements for consultation and public inquiry before making the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant failed to comply with section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (balancing duty)

Ratio Decidendi

The order is quashed because the defendant failed to hold a public inquiry as required by regulation 9 of the 1996 Regulations, which was a mandatory procedural requirement given the restriction on public service vehicles and the existence of relevant objections. This failure caused substantial prejudice to the applicant's interests. The claimant had standing as an unincorporated association at the time of issue. Even if the public inquiry requirement had not been triggered, the defendant's failure to demonstrate a proper section 122 balancing exercise would have rendered the order susceptible to challenge.

Court Disposition

Order quashed

Orders

  • The Traffic Regulation Order of 21 August 2014 is quashed.
  • Parties to seek to agree consequential orders; if not, to inform the court of required hearing length.