Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea & Anor., R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2023] EWHC 536 (Admin)
Sophia Bouchti v London Borough of Enfield
9 November 2022
[2022] EWHC 2809 (Admin)
High Court
A dog walker sued because a new traffic scheme made her job harder. The court said the council made a few mistakes, but not big enough to matter, and the decision to create the traffic scheme was reasonable.
Key Facts
- •The London Borough of Enfield made permanent traffic orders creating a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) in Fox Lane and surrounding roads.
- •Sophia Bouchti, a dog walker whose business was affected by the LTN, challenged the orders via statutory review.
- •Bouchti raised seven grounds of challenge, including procedural failings, deficient consultation, failure to consider statutory duties, and bias.
- •The Council admitted some procedural errors but denied substantial prejudice to Bouchti and other grounds.
- •The LTN restricted through traffic using signs, camera-enforced filter points, and barriers, diverting traffic onto surrounding A-roads.
- •Bouchti lives 0.7 miles from the LTN and argued increased journey times and traffic congestion negatively impacted her business.
- •The Council's consultation involved a survey and a six-month period for objections after experimental orders were implemented.
Legal Principles
Traffic authorities have powers to make traffic orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA), including experimental orders and their subsequent permanent implementation.
RTRA 1984, sections 6, 9, 10
Local authorities must consider the interests of traffic and adjoining property owners when designating parking places (section 45 RTRA).
RTRA 1984, section 45(3)
Authorities must exercise their functions under RTRA to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of traffic, considering various factors (section 122 RTRA).
RTRA 1984, section 122
Validity of orders made under sections 6 and 9 of RTRA are subject to statutory review under Schedule 9, Part VI.
RTRA 1984, Schedule 9, Part VI
A failure to comply with the relevant requirements in Schedule 9 only results in quashing an order if the applicant's interests have been substantially prejudiced.
Schedule 9 to RTRA 1984, paragraph 36(1)(b)
Consultation, whether statutory or non-statutory, must be conducted fairly and properly.
R (Easyjet) v Civil Aviation Authority
The Tameside duty requires decision-makers to take reasonable steps to inform themselves, and the court will only intervene if no reasonable authority could have been satisfied with the information available.
Secretary of State for Education v Tameside MBC; R (Balajigari) v Home Secretary
Regulations 22 and 23 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 govern the procedure for experimental and permanent traffic orders.
Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
Outcomes
The claim was dismissed.
The judge found against the claimant on all seven grounds of challenge. While acknowledging some procedural failings by the Council, the judge concluded these did not cause substantial prejudice to the claimant. The judge also found that the Council had substantially complied with its statutory duties and that the decision was not irrational.
Similar Cases
Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council v Redditch Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 456 (Admin)
Pamela Wesson v Cambridgeshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 1068 (Admin)
Michael James Daw & Ors, R (on the application of) v Staffordshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 963 (Admin)
Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1806 (Admin)