Traffic Regulation Order should stand despite council failure to consider objections of claimant, High Court rules

In Adams v North Somerset Council [2026] EWHC 1883 (Admin) (23 July 2026), Mrs Justice Steyn concluded: “The Council has succeeded in defending all the grounds of claim, save to the limited extent that I find that the failure to consider the two objections filed by the claimant was in breach of regulation 13 of [the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders Regulations 1996].

“Accordingly, the claim for statutory review is dismissed save in part in respect of Ground 3. However, that failure has not caused substantial prejudice to the interests of the claimant, and so I refuse the claim for an order quashing the TRO. The TRO is valid and shall stand.”

The claimant sought review of the decision of North Somerset, made on 9 October 2025, to make a traffic regulation order, introducing parking charges at three car parks in Clevedon.

The claimant relied on the following grounds:

1. In making the TRO, the council acted beyond its statutory powers as conferred by the 1984 Act by implementing parking charges for the primary and improper purpose of generating revenue, and so the TRO is ultra vires.
2. The Council failed to discharge its duties under section 122 of the 1984 Act.
3. The consultation process failed to comply with the Gunning principles and so was deficient. (Encompassed within this ground was an allegation of breach of regulation 13 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ('the 1996 Regulations') by failing to consider the claimant's objection.
4. The Council acted irrationally and procedurally unfairly by failing to assess adequately the impact of displacement of parked vehicles on nearby residential streets.
5. The Council failed to comply with its public sector equality duty ('PSED') under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to disabled, vulnerable and digitally excluded groups.
6. The Council gave insufficient weight to the risks of deterring disabled parking users, families, low income users, volunteers and charity workers from using the car parks where charges will apply, and to displacement of vehicles onto nearby residential roads, and gave too much weight to housing growth, with the consequence that the TRO is misaligned with the Council's adopted policy framework as identified in the Local Plan.
7. The evidence contradicts the Council's assertion that the TRO is necessary to address pressing maintenance needs.

According to the judge, the council conducted a non-statutory public consultation from 18 March to 7 May 2024. The consultation included an online survey for residents, businesses and visitors ('the Public Questionnaire') and a separate survey for town and parish councils and ward councillors ('the Bespoke Questionnaire').

The Public Questionnaire asked 63 questions. These included questions relating to the Parking Management Strategy, such as whether the respondent agreed with the proposed 'vision', proposed objectives, and whether the respondent thought the proposed actions would help address parking issues.

The judge said: “The claimant submitted a questionnaire, although he considered the format to be "very cumbersome" and set up "to lead respondents towards essentially accepting the introduction of charges and to simply comment on how this should work".”

On 25 June 2025, the Council published a Notice of Intent, giving notice of its proposal to make the TRO, a copy of the draft TRO, a Statement of Reasons for making the proposed TRO, and plans of the locations.

These documents were published on the Council's website on 24 June 2025 and the Notice of Intent informed members of the public that should they "wish to make any observations on this proposal (whether you support or object to the proposal)" they should make them in writing by 5pm on 18 July 2025, specifying the grounds on which they are made.

In his first statement, Mr Bailey, a representative of the Council, said that the Council received 21 objections, mainly consisting of "strong opposition to parking charges", similar to the responses to the non-statutory consultation. However, that number did not include an objection from the claimant, who Mr Bailey then understood had not made an objection.

The judge said: “As Mr Bailey has acknowledged in his second statement, that was incorrect. The claimant provided a "statutory consultation response" on 14 July 2025, and a further response on 16 July 2025. Both documents were said to be provided on behalf of the "Clevedon Business Community Group", the claimant having, he says, "nominated himself to represent the Group in the consultation".

“The Council received those objections but due to an error on their part, which Mr Bailey acknowledges, the claimant's consultation responses were only included in the objections for the On Street Clevedon Traffic Order and not the TRO for the Off Street car parking charges in Clevedon. Consequently, these objections were not considered before the TRO was made.”

The responses to the statutory process were considered in the executive decision notice in September 2025.

The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Places and Service Transformation in consultation with the Head of Highways, having considered the objections, decided on 25 September 2025 to proceed to seal the TRO.

The TRO has been in effect from 1 June 2026.

Analysing the grounds in turn, the judge said of ground 1: “It is clear, in my view, that the Council's dominant purpose in making the TRO was to make the car parks self-funding and so ensure that they were not another drain on the Council's resources, and were well maintained. Accordingly, I dismiss Ground 1.”

On ground 2, concerning Section 122 Duties, the judge said: “In making the TRO, the Council clearly had in mind the qualified duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) so far as practicable, had regard to the factors in s.122(2), and balanced the various considerations.

“[…] The Council also assessed air quality, publishing a report in July 2024. Its assessment was that there was no evidence that parking charges would have a negative impact on air quality. Matters such as the lack of lighting in Marson Road car park may underline the need for maintenance work to be undertaken, but the Council has not even arguably made any public law error in complying with s.122.”

On ground 3, the council submitted that it “conscientiously” reviewed the product of the non-statutory and statutory consultations, and did not breach the fourth Gunning principle.

It accepted that it breached reg.13 as a result of an administrative error, in failing to consider the two objections filed by the claimant.

However, it contended that the claimant had failed to establish that his interests had been "substantially prejudiced" by that failure, within the meaning of paragraph 36 of Schedule 9 to the 1984 Act.

The judge dismissed grounds 4, 5, 6 and 7 before addressing the question whether relief should be granted.

Concluding the case, Mrs Justice Steyn said: “In my judgement, the claimant has not shown that his interests have been substantially prejudiced by the limited procedural defect that has been established. It is not enough to show that the objections he submitted were not considered. That establishes the failure to comply with a relevant requirement, it does not show that failure has caused substantial prejudice to the claimant's interests. The claimant had made representations in the context of the non-statutory consultation, by completing the questionnaire, which had been duly considered. As I have explained, the Council had adopted the Parking Management Strategy, and made the decision, in principle, to introduce parking charges at the Clevedon car parks, following the non-statutory consultation.

“The focus of the subsequent statutory process was on the detail of the TRO. The Council's conduct shows it was open to making modifications in response to objections, nonetheless I conclude that the Council would have implemented the TRO without modification if the two objections submitted by the claimant had been correctly allocated and considered by the Council. The procedural failure has caused no substantial prejudice to his interests.”

She continued: “The Council has succeeded in defending all the grounds of claim, save to the limited extent that I find that the failure to consider the two objections filed by the claimant was in breach of regulation 13 of the 1996 Regulations. Accordingly, the claim for statutory review is dismissed save in part in respect of Ground 3. However, that failure has not caused substantial prejudice to the interests of the claimant, and so I refuse the claim for an order quashing the TRO. The TRO is valid and shall stand.”

Lottie Winson