Westminster defeats motorcycle parking challenge

Westminster City Council has successfully fended off a High Court challenge to the validity of a scheme charging motorcyclists a daily fee for parking.

In Djanogly v City of Westminster [2010] EWHC 1825 (Admin), campaigners argued that the council had failed to use its powers for legitimate statutory purposes, and exceeded its powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

As an alternative, the No To Motorbike Parking Tax campaign group claimed that officers at the council had misrepresented to its committee and cabinet members the revenue implications of the orders. They claimed that it would have been obvious to the officers that excess revenue would be generated, and that therefore the members were misled and their decision was vitiated by mistake.

The campaign group also argued that the local authority had failed to carry out a satisfactory consultation exercise before making the relevant orders.

But Lord Justice Pitchford rejected the claims, ruling that Westminster had used its statutory powers for legitimate purposes under s. 122 of the 1984 Act to establish the £1 per day on-street parking charge.

The judge added that the claimant had failed to demonstrate that the local authority had used its powers for the purpose of raising general or s.55(4) revenue, or that officers had misled members into the belief that the scheme would be revenue neutral. He said he disagreed with the claimant's counsel, who suggested that budgeting for a surplus was evidence of an improper purpose.

Lord Justice Pitchford agreed that proper consultation implies a willingness in the authority to be receptive to reasonable argument. The council had received 3,033 objections and one favourable response during its consultation in June 2009.

However, the judge said: “I do not accept that the authority is involved in a head count of those for and those against. It is a matter of no surprise that the vociferous response to consultation came from the motorcycle lobby.

“That does not demonstrate that the arguments pursued by and on behalf of that lobby justified their acceptance by Council Members. I do not accept the submission that the defendant Authority was oblivious to the arguments pursued; nor do I accept that the evidence demonstrates that the policy was immovable.”

The judge added that observations from objectors and the responses by Westminster’s Assistant Director of Parking had led to changes to the scheme, such as reduced charges. “It is clear that the officers went to a good deal of trouble to identify [the objections], to respond to them on their merits and to provide the Cabinet Member with full information,” he added.

Lord Justice Pitchford suggested that Westminster had been assiduous in the performance of its responsibility to consult, and the arguments for and against the scheme were “painstakingly analysed”.

Cllr Lee Rowley, Westminster's cabinet member for parking and transportation, said: "Our decision to charge has been rigorously scrutinised, open to widespread public debate and has now been tested in the High Court. We have always maintained that with huge demand for on-street space in Westminster, charging motorcyclists a small sum to park was reasonable and fair and I'm glad the judge has reiterated this."

Rowley added that he hoped this would "now put an end to any doubt about the legitimacy of our motorbike parking policies".