Case No: CO/7328/2012
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWHC 1010 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 17/04/2015

Before :

MR JUSTICE KNOWLES CBE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :

	Richard Chaumeton	Claimant	
	- and -		
	The London Borough of Camden	Defendant	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Claimant appeared in person
Mr Jason Coppel QC (instructed by Solicitor to London Borough of Camden) for the Defendant

Hearing dates: 21 January 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Mr Justice Knowles : 

Introduction
1.	These proceedings challenge a number of decisions by the London Borough of Camden (“LBC”) to increase or change parking charges across Camden. Permission to challenge the decisions of LBC was granted by Arden LJ on 2 July 2013.
2.	The proceedings are brought by Mr Richard Chaumeton, a building contractor and founder director of a group named the London Motorist Action Group. 
3.	Mr Chaumeton’s perspective is that the intended purpose of the increases and changes in parking charges is to help LBC raise additional revenue, for various purposes. Mr Jason Coppel QC, representing LBC, stated that LBC does not dispute that if the purpose of LBC in deciding the increases and changes had been to raise additional revenue that would be an illegitimate purpose; one not permitted by statute.
4.	As a result the central issue for me to decide is whether the purpose of LBC was in fact to raise additional revenue. I will also deal with a number of additional criticisms advanced by Mr Chaumeton.

The increases and changes
5.	LBC prepared a written Transport Strategy in August 2011. This drew attention to the forecast growth in Camden’s population of 17% or 35,000 people in the 20 years to 2031. The view was expressed that this would put significant extra pressure on the transport network in the borough and surrounding areas. Concerns over air quality, transport noise and congestion were among those noted. The Strategy document also observed that “good transport links can provide access to jobs, services, education, training opportunities, essential services and social networks which can assist regeneration.”
6.	The Strategy document formulated a number of objectives. These included:
“Objective (1): Reduce motor traffic levels and vehicle emissions to improve air quality, mitigate climate change and contribute to making Camden a ‘low carbon and low waste borough’.
Objective (2): Encourage healthy and sustainable travel choices by prioritising walking, cycling and public transport in Camden.” 
7.	A Report dated 6 October 2011 was submitted by the Assistant Director, Environment and Transport at LBC to the Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee. This outlined recommendations including (a) increases and changes in resident parking tariffs for vehicles with larger engines and higher emissions, (b) charges for residents registering a second or third vehicle, (c) the introduction of a tariff supplement for diesel vehicles, (d) replacing a system of quarterly allocation of residents visitor parking permits with an annual allocation, and introducing a flat rate visitor permit charge of £1 per hour (this was later to become £0.90 per hour) in place of a range of £0.57 to £1.73 per hour. A number of recommendations were also made in relation to business parking permits and business visitor permits or vouchers.
8.	The Report indicated that the recommendations were made against a background that included the following elements:
(1)	demand for parking in Camden far outstripped the supply of available kerbspace; this was the case even though, according to the Report, the majority of households in Camden do not have access to a private vehicle; 
(2)	further increases in employment and population were expected;
(3)	a balance had to be struck between different and competing users: the Report instanced residents and their visitors, businesses operating and carrying out deliveries across the borough, disabled people and trades people.
9.	The Report observed that parking controls were a key not only in managing the high demand for kerbspace but also in keeping traffic moving, managing congestion and constraining motor traffic. It recorded that LBC’s overall experience was that parking arrangements were effective in (among other things) reducing the number of private cars travelling on Camden roads, improving air quality, ensuring good access for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and emergency vehicles, reducing noise, and enabling those with private vehicles to park closer to their home.
10.	The Culture and Environment Scrutiny Committee considered the Report at a meeting on 17 October 2011, when it was accompanied by an Update in “powerpoint” form. The Update acknowledged that implementation of the recommendations would involve one-off capital costs of the order of £241,000 and would increase the overall income of LBC by approximately £1,511,000 in 2012/13 rising to £1,735,000 in 2015/16. The Update expressly assured the Committee that the financial implications of the recommendations “are a consequence of the recommendations and are not the driver for the suggested changes”. 
11.	The minutes of the meeting on 17 October 2011 show discussion of the recommendations, with Councillors seeking further clarification from officials on a number of subjects including business permit costs and emission based charging. Councillors in principle agreed to the content of the Report, and recommended “that, the Cabinet, develop a more holistic parking policy for Camden to include housing estates and also consideration of charging for higher emission vehicles following a benchmarking exercise of neighbouring boroughs”.
12.	LBC’s Cabinet Member for Environment was Councillor Sue Vincent. She was asked on 31 October 2011 to agree some recommendations and agree others subject to further compliance with the statutory process for amendments to traffic management orders. Councillor Vincent received a deputation on 9 November 2011 from Mr Chaumeton and others. The minutes of that meeting record that a deputation statement was received and that two concerns were raised. The first of those concerns related to the question whether someone with an outstanding penalty charge notice could purchase a residents’ parking permit, and the second related to the question whether residents should still be able to purchase half-hour visitor parking permits. Neither concern is central to this judicial review, but it is clear from the documents before me that each received consideration by Councillor Vincent. 
13.	The meeting on 9 November 2011 was not the first meeting between Councillor Vincent and Mr Chaumeton. In particular they had met before on 14 October 2011, with others. A Draft Agenda of the London Motorist Action Group relates to this. It has a substantial list of subjects, including “Parking Policy Review – Overall objectives”. Against this is the annotation “transparency/ balance”, words that Mr Chaumeton attributes to Councillor Vincent in a recollection that I accept as accurate.  
14.	LBC’s Cabinet met on 7 December 2011. The Cabinet received a substantial report from the Director of Finance entitled Camden Financial Strategy Update. This surveyed the whole of LBC’s financial position (and thus including areas well outside parking and traffic). Its focus included a focus on fees and charges, and on recovering costs and maximising income for services. Also submitted to Cabinet for its meeting on 7 December 2011 was a report of the Director of Culture and Environment signed on 24 November 2011.
15.	The report from the Director of Finance did draw attention to the decline in income from penalty charge notices, within what it described as “parking services”. However Appendix E, providing a more detailed treatment of the topic of fee and charge increases and changes, included a distinct section on “Parking Services”. This began:
“Parking Services’ fees and charges have been reviewed within a different legal regime than other areas, and are not subject to any directive concerning maximisation of income. Fees and charges have been comprehensively reviewed with the Parking Policy Review project.”
16.	So far as material this part of Appendix E continued as follows:
“The price of resident parking permits are all increasing above 5%, with the exception of tariff 1, in order to increase the price differentials between the tariffs to create a greater incentive for motorists to downsize their vehicle. Tariff 4 permits will increase the most at 50%. A new £10 supplement for diesel vehicles is proposed as diesel vehicles produce higher air quality related emissions (oxides of nitrogen, NOx, particular [sic] matter and other noxious wastes) compared to those of petrol vehicles. A new fee is proposed for 2nd and 3rd vehicles to discourage multiple vehicle ownership and create a fairer system for those with no access to off street parking facilities.
The fees for business permits are proposed to be increased by 35% as the ratio between the cost of a resident permit and that of a business permit has fallen significantly since 2003 (when compared to the current price for a tariff 4 resident permit). Vehicles used for business purposes are likely to be used far more intensively than residents’ vehicles and will therefore contribute proportionally more vehicle emissions. In addition, this increase would bring Camden more in line with neighbouring authorities.
Following a review of the costs incurred by the Council, the price of implementing specific bays that will have a dedicated use, eg a Business Permit A bay, have been increased.
A new system for residents and business visitor vouchers is proposed. Rather than the current tiered system a flat rate charging structure is proposed and residents and businesses will be able to purchase their allocation annually rather than quarterly.
…”
17.	Appendix E and F further itemised increases and changes described above. The increases and changes were specifically approved by Cabinet, as minuted at paragraph 11(xiii) of the minutes of its meeting. 
18.	In due course, LBC published the increases and changes. In particular on 16 February 2012 a detailed but large advertisement was placed in the local press, as contemplated by the procedure set out under paragraph 7 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (“the Regulations”). The advertisement gave notice that LBC proposed to make a series of Traffic Management Orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It included a summary of the increases and changes, and details of the level of charges. The advertisement stated that any person wishing to object to the proposed Orders should send comments in writing by 10 March 2012. LBC received no objections. 
19.	Traffic Management Orders were duly made on 20 March 2012, where required to implement the increases and changes. 

The central issue
20.	On the central issue whether the purpose of LBC was in fact to raise additional revenue, I find against Mr Chaumeton. 
21.	My reasons are as follows:
(1)	There is no evidence that this was LBC’s purpose. 
(2)	Mr Chaumeton points to the additional revenue in fact raised or projected to be raised from the increases and changes. However it does not follow from the fact that additional revenue is raised or projected to be raised that that was the purpose of the increases and changes. Referring to costs figures provided by LBC under Freedom of Information requests, Mr Chaumeton argues that costs related to the residents permit schemes and residents visitor voucher schemes, in particular, are well below income raised. This is, with respect, much the same point. It does not follow from the fact that income raised exceeds costs that creating that excess was the purpose of the increases and changes.
(3)	By contrast to the above, there is evidence, especially in the Update used on 17 October 2011 and in Appendix E of the report from the Director of Finance, that LBC’s purpose was not to raise revenue but was to address the problems that come with private vehicle traffic. I accept the assurance quoted from the Update at paragraph 10 above and the passage from Appendix E quoted at paragraph 15 above were true.
(4)	Mr Chaumeton advances the proposition (at paragraph 5 of his written submissions) that “any local authority paid for parking scheme must be directed to be revenue neutral”. This is, with respect, a mistaken proposition. The requirement that an authority not use parking charges for the purpose of raising additional revenue does not mean that the objective must be revenue neutrality. Indeed, addressing the problems that come with private vehicle traffic may mean a parking scheme that is far from revenue neutral. This is also why the mere fact of “budgeting for a surplus” or of recognition of “the likelihood of a surplus” is not “evidence of an improper purpose” or “determinative of the legitimacy” of parking orders  (see R (Djanogly) v Westminster City Council) [2011] RTR 9 at [14] per Pitchford LJ in the Divisional Court; and note also that the present case is not a case where the local authority’s purpose was as in R (Atfield) v Barnet LBC [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin).)
(5)	Mr Chaumeton contends that references in the report from the Director of Finance about seeking to make additional “savings” beyond its savings programme, support his case on LBC’s purpose. Read in the context of a report that was addressing LBC’s whole financial position, and taken with an Appendix E which contained the express qualification in the context of parking services that I set out at paragraph 15 above, in my judgment they do not. 
22.	Mr Chaumeton also alleged that, since the decision in Cran v Camden London Borough Council [1995] RTR 346, LBC “have learned to dress up” intended income increases as “savings” in their documents. This was an allegation that questioned LBC’s good faith. There is no evidence that that was how LBC was behaving, and without that evidence the allegation should not have been made. 

The additional criticisms
23.	A number of additional criticisms were directed by Mr Chaumeton against LBC in the course of oral argument. These were, to his credit, made concisely and with moderation. I deal below with the main criticisms made.
24.	Referring to Councillor Vincent’s reference at the meeting on 14 October 2011 to transparency and balance, Mr Chaumeton said that there was no transparency as he was never given a copy of the Report (of 6 October 2011). Knowledge of the £1 flat rate proposal came only at the meeting on 9 November 2011, he said. Then he was called by another Councillor (Councillor Chris Knight) as late as 13 April 2012 to ask him whether he knew “the permits were going up”, and he had answered no. However even if Mr Chaumeton was not given a copy of the Report, I am quite satisfied that he gained, not least from the meetings with Councillor Vincent, sufficient appreciation of the material content of the Report and recommendations that I have summarised above. And almost two months before Councillor Knight’s call the advertisement placed in the local press had detailed the increases and changes. 
25.	Referring to the increase in the highest tariff based on emission or engine size, Mr Chaumeton pointed out that the Report had proposed a 26% increase to £210 whereas the report from the Director of Finance to Cabinet showed a 50% increase to £250. He argued that the difference was not explained in October and November 2011 and asks where this was agreed to by Councillors. The Update used on 17 October 2011 clearly raised the question whether an increase to £210 was enough. The Cabinet agreed the higher figure at its meeting on 9 November 2011.
26.	Referring back to 2005/6, Mr Chaumeton said there had been insufficient consultation then. I cannot agree. LBC’s evidence, which I accept, was that the proposals made by the Report were built on consultations including consultation on a Parking and Enforcement Plan in early 2006. The evidence of Mr Monck, Assistant Director, Environment and Transport, is that this consultation found majority support in favour of charging higher permit charges for larger vehicles, and for operating a system whereby additional permits per household were charged at a higher rate. A Report on Consultation dated 5 July 2006 also referred to the receipt by LBC’s Parking Scrutiny Panel of 150 written submissions and oral representations from over 60 residents and local groups. 
27.	Referring to the Regulations, Mr Chaumeton argued that there was an additional obligation to consult one or more other authorities or bodies under paragraph 6 (rather than paragraph 7) of the Regulations because, he submitted, pollution particularly affected arterial roads. This argument was not developed in detail. It is sufficient that I say in the present matter I am not satisfied that the evidence shows that any of the “cases” listed under paragraph 6 of the Regulations were engaged as would be required for this argument to be sound. That conclusion says nothing of the situation in another matter or on other evidence. 
28.	Referring to air pollution maps taken from LBC’s website, Mr Chaumeton suggested that the only places that air quality objectives for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter were not met were the arterial routes, which he suggested had less relevance to the residential parking issues which were among the issues with which he was concerned. He added that other London boroughs charged less and he criticised the fact that the charges for a second and third vehicle were not linked to engine size or emission level. However for each of these points, even if accurate, there is a counter point. And ultimately these are all matters for LBC, and in particular the relevant elected individuals and public servants.
29.	Referring to income figures obtained from LBC under Freedom of Information requests, Mr Chaumeton pointed out that income has increased from residents permits and residents visitor vouchers whilst volume of those permits and vouchers has decreased. This does not ground an objection. On one view it can be said to support LBC’s point that pricing can be effective in (among other things) some of the ways described at paragraph 9 above.
30.	Referring to Department of Transport guidance issued in 2008 (itself referring to section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) indicating that local authorities who find that surplus income results from “realistic demand management prices for parking” must ensure that its main use where not used for enforcement “is to improve by whatever means transport provision in the area so that road users may benefit”, in written submissions Mr Chaumeton argued that by treating an excess of revenue over costs as “savings” to its general account, LBC were “attempting to circumvent the law”. However Mr Chaumeton had sought and received information on the application of the surplus, again using the Freedom of Information Act. The reply he received on 8 August 2013 advised that the surplus on the parking account was applied to highway and traffic improvement and maintenance, concessionary fares, and home to school transport. Mr Chaumeton did not seek to show at the hearing in what way this application contravened the guidance and legislation referred to.

Conclusion
31.	In all the circumstances this judicial review must fail.