The claimant challenged the validity of parking orders made by the Council, in the imposition of charges for motor-cycles.
Held: The challenge was rejected. Pitchford LJ said: ‘ It seems to me almost self-evident that there will be a need to designate spaces for on-street parking in a London borough with a profile such as Westminster’s. The evidence is overwhelming that on-street parking in Westminster requires rationalisation . . The underlying policy justification for introducing a charge to motorcycle users for the improved provision of on-street parking, namely that there was a need to strike an equitable balance between vehicle users, seems to me to be utterly unexceptional. There was a finite capacity for kerb-side parking. Motorcyclists needed more space. That space would be provided partly by re-assigning bays formerly used by motor cars and partly by extending them. While there were traffic management and environmental arguments for and against treating motorcyclists as a special case it does not seem to me reasonably arguable that the Authority acted outside its statutory powers by resolving that all road users should pay their fair share for on-street provision of spaces.
In my view, the evidence demonstrates two clear objectives the Authority sought to achieve by the introduction of the parking orders. The first was to improve on-street parking availability for motorcyclists in order to meet actual increased demand and anticipated increased demand. The existence of that need cannot, in my view, be seriously challenged. The evidence was overwhelming . .
The second objective . . was the termination of discriminatory treatment between motorcycles and cars. Pressure on kerb-side space was created both by motorcycles and cars. The Authority considered it right to balance the interests of both by introducing charges for motorcycles while, at the same time, providing free off-street parking on its secure parking sites . . I accept both the existence of increased demand and the need to level the playing field between motorcyclists and other vehicular traffic.’
Pitchford LJ, Maddison J
[2010] EWHC 1825 (Admin), [2011] RTR 9
Bailii
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Djanogly v Westminster City Council CA 19-Apr-2011
The appellant challenged the defendant’s order imposing parking charges for motor-cycles. He challenged the assertion that the charges were properly part of a traffic management scheme, and secondly he attacked the findings of the respondent’s cost . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.420805
