b'Section 65 lists a number of matters on which any surplus in the special account can be spent. They include the purposes for which Barnet had, and had intended, to apply its surplus. On that basis Barnets proposals were entirely legitimate. However, section 122 of the 1984 Act imposes a general duty on local authorities exercising their powers under the Act to do so only for certain specified purposes (reflecting the common law rule that statutory powers can only be used for the purposes for which they were conferred). Although any surplus can be applied for the section 65 purposes, earlier case law had established that it is unlawful to set charges for the express purpose of creating a surplus. The court noted that in an earlier caseDjanogly (see below)Pitchford J had said: Charging may be justified provided it is aimed at the fulfilment of the statutory purposes which are identified in section 122 (compendiously referred to by the parties as traffic management purposes). Such purposes may include but are not limited to, the cost of provision of on-street and off-street parking, the cost of enforcement, the need to restrain competition for on-street parking, encouraging vehicles off-street, securing an appropriate balance between different classes of vehicles and users, and selecting charges which reflect periods of high demand. What the authority may not do is introduce charging and charging levels for the purpose, primary or secondary, of raising section 55(4) revenue. In Djanogly v Westminster City Council [2011] RTR 9 (the Djanogly case) however, Westminster City Council had established that the purpose of its charges for motorcycle parking was to restrain competition and secure an appropriate balance, preventing the available parking space being flooded with motorcycles. Barnet had no similar policies in place.Mrs Justice Lang said in her judgment, that the 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes. Barnet LBCs purpose in increasing the charges for resident parking permits and visitor vouchers on 14 February 2011 was found to be a scheme set up for the purposes of generating additional income to meet projected expenditure for road maintenance and improvement, concessionary fares and other road transport costs. The intention was to transfer the surplus on the Special Parking Account to the General Fund at year end, to defray other road transport expenditure and reduce the need to raise income from other sources, such as fines, charges and council tax. This purpose, according to the court, was not authorised under the 1984 Act and therefore the decision was unlawful and was quashed.Consequently, although it seems to be acceptable to plan to make a modest surplus to provide a safety net in case income drops, Barnet must review its charges and faces a probable reduction of its 5m surpluseffectively a cut in the funds available for highways maintenance.127'