Taxi Driver Online

I'm sure I've highlighted this case before but all the activity about bus lanes in the Edinburgh area has prompted me to post the full case.

R v Oxfordshire County Council ex parte Measor

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (CROWN OFFICE LIST)

HEARING-DATES: 4 JULY 1997

4 JULY 1997

COUNSEL:
Miss A McShane for the Applicant; A Trevelyan-Thomas for the Respondent

PANEL: POPPLEWELL J

JUDGMENTBY-1: POPPLEWELL J

JUDGMENT-1:
POPPLEWELL J: This is an application by Mr Measor to challenge a number of decisions of the Oxfordshire County Council in relation to their decision to exclude taxis from bus lanes within their jurisdiction.

The applicant, Mr Measor, is Secretary of the City of Oxford Licensed Taxi Cab Association and a licensed taxi driver himself. The County Council are responsible, pursuant to the legislation for the provision of highways and the control over traffic going along those highways.

The statutory provisions can be shortly set out. Section 1 of the Road Traffic reg Act 1984 reads as follows:

"The traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make an order under this section in respect of any road outside Greater London road where it appears to the authority making the order that is expedient to make it."

Paragraph (c), probably the most germane paragraph:

"For facilitating the passage on the road or any other road of any class of traffic."

Section (2):

"A traffic regulation order may make any provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating the use of a road, or of any part of the width of a road, by vehicular traffic, or by vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order --

(a) either generally or subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order or determined in a manner provided for by it, and

(2) The provision that may be made by a traffic regulation order includes any provision --

(a) requiring vehicular traffic, or vehicular traffic of any class specified in the order, to proceed in a specified direction or prohibiting its so proceeding.

(b) specifying the part of the carriageway to be used by such traffic proceeding in a specified direction."

By s 64 which is general provisions as to traffic it is said:

"In this Act 'traffic sign' means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description --

(a) specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or

(b) authorised by the Secretary of State and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.

Section 122:

"It shall be the duty of the Greater London Council and of every other local authority upon whom functions are conferred by or under this Act, so to exercise the functions conferred by this Act to secure the expeditions, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

By 2(c):

"The matters referred to in subsection (1) above as being specified in this subsection are --

(c) the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles."

By s 142(3):

"References in this Act to a class of vehicles or traffic shall be construed as references to a class defined or described by reference to only characteristics of the vehicles or traffic or to any other circumstances whatsoever."

The signs that are specified under the Act are those contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and the general directions. There does not appear to be a specified sign which would exclude taxis sufficiently identified to cover Oxford City taxis. The effect of the Act and the Regulations, however, is clear to me. The local authority have power to regulate who shall use a bus lane. They have the power to require the Secretary of State, if they wanted the bus lanes to be used by taxis, to devise a sign, which is not a specified sign, which would allow Oxford City taxis to use the bus lane.

The area of dispute with which this case is concerned relates to two short stretches of road. It is the intention of Oxford City Council to review the question of bus lanes generally. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with two specific areas. The first is described as the West Way and Botley Road. It is a piece of road about half a mile long which is on the western side of the city of Oxford. The road goes under the A34 ring road going down towards Abingdon. The bus route is limited to buses coming in. It is not limited to buses going out. The bus lane of traffic going out of Oxford goes along that road.

The second stretch of road comes from the Kidlington Roundabout, down the boundary road until it strikes the A40, the northern bypass. That is a stretch of road, I am told, which is some three-quarters of a mile long and that too will be a route for inbound buses. Both those routes have the restriction of 24 hours a day. Cyclists are allowed along them. Taxis are permitted to set down and pick up. In the Botley Road area, the first 100 yards is allowed for traffic in order to use a car. That forms the background to this matter.

The primary submissions on behalf of the applicant are these. The County Council came to a conclusion, wrongly advised as to the law, namely, it was not possible to devise a sign which would allow taxis to use the bus lane. Secondly, the County Council have not carried out any proper enquiry into the effect which taxis would have if they were allowed to use a bus lane. In particular, the conclusion which they came to, namely, that taxis using the bus lane would cause difficulty is anecdotal in the extreme and is not supported by evidence which I allowed from Doctor Root, a Traffic Expert, as to the effect of the use of these bus lanes.

Subsidiary to those two submissions was a submission that there should have been a public inquiry held into this matter, given that there were objections from the Oxford City Council; the bus companies were not particularly supportive of the scheme, Parish Councils were not supportive of the scheme; there were objections from individuals and this was a prime situation in which a public inquiry should be held. Lastly, as the respondent's transport policy is to give priority to public transport, and it is accepted that taxis come within the phrase "public transport", the exclusion of taxis from the bus lane was contrary to the respondent's transport policy. It is accepted that the committees may only exercise their very great powers within the council's overall policies.

I mention only in passing that at Botley Road there had been an experiment which involved fitting buses with some device so that they could use the bus lane which was not available to other vehicles. A certain amount of argument was put forward as to whether the exclusion of access at that time was the subject of consultation whether it would have been possible to fit taxis with some devices also to enable them to use the lanes. I regard those arguments as comparatively sterile. They have no particular bearing on the issue I have to decide, namely, the approach of the County Council on the determination that the use of taxis of these bus lanes would be detrimental to traffic generally, was a good one or not.

On 26 July the Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party of the Oxfordshire County Council recommended that the traffic orders, which were in preparation and pending, should be promoted with no exemption for taxis or hired cars. I turn therefore to the documentation in this case. The Oxford Bus Company on 8 March 1996 had taken the view that:

"The question of taxis using the bus lanes and bus gates seems academic when there is so much abuse of bus lanes by motorists, especially in the peak hours. The problem of general abuse by motorists and also the conflict with cyclists in bus lanes seems more significant than the issue of whether taxis should be permitted to use them."

The Director of the Enviromental Services to the City Council recommended to the Committee that they should not agree to exclude hackney carriages and observed that 17 letters had been received from the general public. The Highways and Traffic Committee of the City Council met. They concluded that they should seek to discuss with the council officers the question of taxis being excluded from the bus lane because they were against it.The notes of the meeting of 26 July are set out in the documents. Under the heading "Bus Lanes" the County Officers said this:

"Taxi use of bus lanes disadvantages buses to some degree, especially at peak times. In addition it encourages abuse of bus lanes by general traffic. This effect would be significantly increased if private hire vehicles were also permitted to use bus lanes, particularly since private hire vehicles are unlikely to be so easily identifiable and therefore less likely to be seen as different from private cars.

Although there are clear benefits for taxis in being able to use bus lanes at peak times to avoid congestion, off-peak the benefits are much less significant; indeed travel in the bus lane could be slower because taxis will often be balked by buses stopping at bus stops sometimes leading to lane changing which has serious safety implications."

They then set out what happened at the Botley Road bus lane. They continue:

"This is a particular concern as the use of bus facilities by taxis or private hire vehicles cannot be restricted to only those licensed in Oxford."

In my judgment, that is a misinterpretation of the legal position.

A further complaint made by the applicant is that the question of advantage or disadvantage, put forward by the officers, was a matter upon which no inquiry or no monitoring had taken place and at best can only be described as anecdotal. The report of the meeting on 26 July reads as follows:

"The working party had before them a report which considered current and future policy on access for taxis and private hire vehicles in relation to bus lanes/priority systems and restricted central area streets.

Councillor Saunders stressed the City Council's view that private hire vehicles and hackney carriages were an important part of the public transport system, especially for the elderly and mobility impaired, and that to prohibit them from using bus lanes would lead to higher fares and thereby disadvantage these groups.

County Council members expressed concern that continued use of bus lanes by taxis would be likely to lead to misuse by other vehicles and would lead to delay for buses. However they believed that provision of access for taxis and private hire vehicles to central area streets remained an important objective.

Mr Rant and Mr Diver explained that consultation would be carried out with representatives of hackney carriage owners and private hire vehicles as it became necessary to remake existing bus lane orders on radial routes around the City.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by councillor Barnes, seconded by Councillor Bob Morgan and carried by 3 votes to 1) (one assumes that Councillor Saunders was the one dissenting from the City Council):

(a) in view of --

(i) the key objective of the Oxford Transport Strategy that maxium advantage should be given to buses over other traffic;

(ii) the practical problems of accommodating other types of vehicles associated with the operation of new bus priority systems; and

(iii) the fact that overall the balance of the advantages of taxis continued use of the bus lanes, compared with the disadvantages to buses and other road users, did not appear to favour such continued use;

to support the principle of taxis and hire cars being excluded from bus lanes in general."

On 29 August the Highway Sub-Committee of the Oxfordshire County Council Environmental Committee adopted the recommendations of the Working Party. That is set out in a document which is before the court.

The solicitor acting for the applicant, whose diligence in this case on behalf of his client is much to be commended, attended and spoke on behalf of his clients. A tape recording was made which has been transcribed and is contained within the papers before the court. The Minutes read as follows:

"The Sub-Committee had before them a report (HW7) presented to the Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party on 26th July 1996, which considered the Council's current and future policies on access for taxis and private hire vehicles in relation to two elements of the Oxford Transport Strategy: Bus Lanes/ Priority Systems and Restricted Central Area Streets. Also before the Sub-Committee were representations considered by the Working Party and received by the Sub-Committee."

They then set out the Working Party's decision and the the recommendations of the Working Party. The Minute continues:

"Mr Demidecki spoke on behalf of his clients against the Working Party's recommendation (b). He emphasised that taxis licensed by the City Council, were being required to convert to full wheelchair accessibility, and to replace all existing vehicles by London-type 'black cabs' by 1999. This meant that a large investment was necessary by taxi proprietors in order to meet the required level of public transport service. Taxis had been using bus lanes in Oxford City for the past 20 years, and there was, and would continue to be, no problem in distinguishing them from private hire and other vehicles. To COLTA's knowledge there had never been an accident involving a taxi as a result of its using the bus lane, and they saw no reason why taxis should now be excluded from bus lanes. He referred to correspondence from the Oxford Bus Company which had indicated that the question of taxis using bus lanes appeared to be purely academic against a background of existing widespread abuse by other vehicles. Mr Demidecki urged the Sub-Committee to allow all the purpose built 'black cab' taxis operating in Oxford to carry tags so that they might use the Botley Road bus gate, and to continue to allow use of all bus lanes by all licensed taxis.

Mr Rant [who is one of the officers] emphasised particular concerns at the possibility of increased abuse of bus lanes by other traffic with the prospect of greater numbers of the vehicles being allowed legitimately to use them."

That is criticised as being a view of the officer based on no evidence. I reject that criticism. It was simply observed that the officers were setting out a concern. What was being suggested was the possibility and no more. Miss McShane was quite right however to complain about the first sentence in the following passage:

"He explained that it was not legally possible to restrict bus lanes only to those taxis licensed by the Oxford City Council. Use of bus lanes by larger numbers of other vehicles would cause delay for buses and affect the operational efficiency of bus gates which were currently in place on the Botley Road, and likely to be introduced elsewhere in the City, and could lead to road safety problems caused by cars weaving between lanes e.g. untagged vehicles pulling into the mainstream traffic to avoid the bus gates, or taxis pulling out to avoid buses stopped to a bus stop. He accepted that there would be a slight disadvantage in journey times for taxis, but he believed that this would be offset by the improvements from improved traffic flows generally in and around the City Centre.

In response to Mr Demidecki's statements on behalf of COLTA that they had not been adequately consulted on the proposals,

Mr Rant explained that they had a representative on the officer working group which considered all traffic management issues in the City, and that they had been fully consulted on the particular proposals for Botley Road.

Mr Leverton reported a letter from the Oxford and District Licensed Private Hire Association expressing their support for the Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party's recommendation (d) concerning access to restricting Central Area Streets.

The Sub-Committee were of the opinion that the protection of bus priority over other traffic was an important objective in the context of the Oxford Transport Strategy. Whilst some members expressed concern that persons who needed to use taxis as an alternative to other forms of public transport might be disadvantaged in terms of the longer journey times and therefore some additional expense if taxis were not able to use bus lanes, the Sub-Committee generally felt that there should not be positive discrimination in favour of this group by allowing them faster travel across the City than other traffic. Members noted that there were practical difficulties in relation to the use by taxis of the Botley Road traffic signal system, and also expressed concern at the road safety disbenefits, as expressed above, which might occur as a consequence of increased use of bus lanes by vehicles other than buses."

It was resolved and carried by ten votes to nil to adopt the recommendations of the Oxford Transport Strategy Working Party.

Miss McShane, on behalf of the applicants, accepted that that Minute fairly represented the representations which had been made by her client, but she drew my attention to the transcript of the tape recording because she said it showed, effectively, two things. First, the members who took part in this meeting did not all have adequate or proper knowledge of this particular area. Secondly, the approach was one which was unreasonable in the sense that they were giving the benefit of their views without any proper inquiry. Miss McShane took me through the list of members and where they lived and observed that the views of the City Council, who were represented in the City, ought to be given greater weight than that of other members who lived a greater distance away from this particular area. I do not find any strength in that argument. Anyone who drives around Oxford could scarcely be unaware of the very severe traffic problems that exists there. You do not have to live actually within the city boundaries to know exactly what problems arise. It seems to me that those who made the decision have perfectly adequate knowledge of the traffic situation.

I turn to the specific passages from the transcript. It is fair to observe that this sort of discussion is necessarily a general discussion. It is, I suspect, like a jury discussion where all sorts of points are made but, at the end of the day, the Committee have to come to a conclusion. The Chairman is recorded as saying:

"Having driven along ... I find that other people immediately don't recognise it as a taxi."

Councillor Johnson said:

"I personally have seen some of the difficulties I must say caused by private hire cars not licensed taxis. If I saw it as a fairly casual visitor to Oxford it must occur fairly frequently. If we're going to have these bus lanes without any ambiguity then sadly that's what we've got to do."

It is pointed out that is not without "any ambiguity" because cyclists are allowed to use it. Taxis are now allowed to set down and pick up for the first hundred yards in Botley Road. Councillor Collins is recorded as saying:

"I can't see that is a significant enough reason for allowing the integrity of a bus lane to be compromised by taxis.

I think the danger that the use of bus lanes is compromised and generally flouted by cars and its not only that."

Councillor Hook said:

"Because you've got the problem of privilege but I think much more important is the problem of abuse or danger.

I use it from time to time and it was interesting to see how people abuse it. The general position I think is that private hire vehicles and one I saw today going in the bus lane aren't easily recognised for what they are. In principle I think it's essential that the bus lane should be crystal clear for buses only because the effect if others are allowed is that a private hire vehicles will follow the taxis. They will be followed by private cars as people are unclear what the rules really are. It seems to me that sitting on the Botley Road one can see danger all the time. Having seen the abuses which do happen and as a result of the abuse prime risk of cars not fully understanding the rules, people will move into bus lane and use it for say quarter of a mile."

Councillor Doctor Clarke says:

"If they see one going in then they will follow. I perfectly accept that argument."

That is criticised again by Miss McShane on the basis that this is somewhat anecdotal evidence that if licensed taxis are allowed to go down the access, then private cars will follow. That will totally destroy the purpose of the bus route.

There were then further representations, including long letters from the applicants. The Highways Sub-committee met on 13 February. In the report by the officers, it will observed, there were five objections which had been received in relation to the West Way order and three in relation to the Kidlington Roundabout order:

"The principal theme of the objections and representations is the proposal to exclude taxis from the bus lanes. The City Council object to both Orders on the grounds that taxis are an essential means of transport for people who are unable to use buses or do not have use of a car, and that exclusion of taxis from the bus lanes will financially penalise those people. The City Council also represent that, whatever the the outcome of the taxi exclusion question, the Orders should contain both taxis and private hire vehicles to pick up and set down in the bus lanes during the clearway hours."

As I have indicated, the County Council acceeded to that request.

"The Vale of White Horse District Council support the West Way bus lane in principle (whilst expressing doubts about the resultant carriageway capacity on the approach to the park and ride access), but they too object to exclusion of taxis."

The Report continues:

"These themes are developed at greater length in objections to both orders submitted by the Secretary of the City of Oxford Licensed Taxi Cab Association."

His grounds are then set out. The Director of Environmental Services then comments:

"The main point which the Sub-Committee need to address is whether the proposed exclusion of taxis should be maintained. This principle was considered at length by the Sub-Committee at the 29 August 1996 meeting. Members are referred to the report submitted at that time via the OTS Working Party; and to Sub-Committee minute 44/96, which records the decision not to include exemptions for taxis or private hire cars in future bus lane orders, in the light of the factors discussed in the report and at the meeting, and the advice of the Working Party."

That is set out and then various arguments in favour and against are set out. Paragraph 14:

"The practical problems surrounding use by taxis of the Botley Road bus gate and other bus priority systems, and the possibility of attaching electronic tags to taxis and other vehicles to enable them to trigger such systems, were discussed."

The report also alluded to the safety problems of vehicles switching between bus lanes and general traffic lanes. Paragraph 17:

"Overall, the main judgment has to be between the claimed disadvantages of excluding taxis from the bus lanes and the danger of the benefits of the bus lanes to buses being eroded either by over-intensive use of the bus gates, or encouragement of use by other vehicles, or both, that retention of taxis in the bus lanes could imply, together with the practical and safety difficulties outlined earlier. I do not consider that new arguments have been put forward which should persuade the Sub-Committee to relax their previous stance on the principle of taxis using bus lanes; it is central to the success of OTS that buses - as the main medium for carrying increasing numbers of people around the City - should be assisted to the greatest degree practicable, and development of the bus lanes in the manner proposed in the draft orders is an important draft orders is an important means of contributing to this end."

The question of the public inquiry is raised, which I will deal with separately in a moment. That report was before the Sub-Committee:

"The Sub-Committee considered a report (HW12) which set out proposals for the amendment and extension of the existing bus lanes and clearway restrictions in the West Way, Botley and the A4165, Banbury Road/Oxford Road north of the A40, considered objections and representations received to the advertised proposals, and recommended a modification to the published order in the light of these

RESOLVED: (on a motin by Councillor Collins, seconded by Councillor Johnston and carried nem con) that the Orders be made subject to a modification to permit taxis and private hire cars to stop to pick up or set down passengers during the clearway hours, and to enter a bus lane specifically for that purpose, if it was not reasonably practical to stop for that purpose in any other place."

Those are the decisions which are challenged. I come back to the two primary submissions, namely the misdirection by Mr Rant as to the inability to have an exclusion under the regulations of taxis in the bus lane. That was clearly wrong advice. It does not, however, necessarily follow that because some wrong advice has been given there is necessarily sufficient ground for the decision to be quashed. The court has a discretion. It is very important that the Court should consider what material effect that had on the decision of any of these bodies.

It is quite clear that misleading view was put forward in relation to the first two meetings and is contained in the papers of the third meeting. To that extent, it was before the Council. But equally it is perfectly obvious, from reading all the papers, that the Oxford County Council decided that public transport, namely buses, in this respect were to have priority and that there was to be no relaxation of that priority. There were a number of reasons but, substantially the reason was that they must get the buses through without obstruction, and therefore they would exclude taxis. To that end, the question of whether or not they could prevent taxis by way of a sign from using the bus lane, was a comparatively small part of the decision-making process. Although I accept that the information given to the Council by Mr Rant was inaccurate, in my judgment, it played little or no part in the decision of the councillors.

Equally important was the submission that the decision by the Council to prevent taxis from using the bus lane, was based on a view that if taxis were allowed to use the bus lane, private cars would use the bus lane. Thus the whole object of an exclusion of traffic from the bus lane, other than buses would be compromised. It is said that the decision was based effectively on anecdotal evidence. I do not agree. You do not have to be a traffic expert because if you drive round the country you observe that everywhere bus lanes are abused by private vehicles. It is self-evident. It is equally self-evident that if you exclude vehicles, all vehicles except buses, the buses are less likely to be prevented from travelling as speedily as they can. Clearly, if you exclude taxis, their journeys may be longer and their fares may be higher. Equally the journey of the buses will be speeded up. The fewer vehicles in the bus lane, the speedier buses will be able to go. It does not need a traffic expert to arrive at that conclusion.

However, as I indicated, Miss McShane persuaded me that I should consider the evidence produced comparatively recently by Doctor Root about the effect. This was not material before the Council and Miss McShane complains it is the sort of material that should have been before the Council. Doctor Root is a Transport Researcher. Two researchers on her behalf carried out some observations of journey times of taxis with stop watches and they were recorded. The research showed that journey times not in bus lanes were longer than there in bus lanes. No-one would be surprised at that conclusion. She also conducted a monitoring of traffic flow. Her conclusions in relation to a number of observations are as follows:

"She looked at bus lane traffic flow from the Abingdon Road, in the morning rush hour, where there was a separate cycle lane. She observed that inside the bus lane there were some 348 cars, 7 taxis, 33 buses.

In respect of the Banbury Road, during the the morning rush hour, there were 67 cars in the bus lane, 38 buses and 1 taxi. There was no separate cycle lane.

As to Botley Road, where there was a separate cycle lane, during the morning rush hour, there were 4 cars, 28 buses and 4 taxis in the bus lane.

In the London Road, during the morning rush hour, where there was no separate cycle lane, there were 3 cars, 36 buses and 1 taxi in the bus lane.

At Woodstock Road, during the morning rush hour, where there was no separate cycle lane, there were 12 cars, 21 buses and 5 taxis in the bus lane.

During evening rush hour at Abingdon Road there were or 242 cars, 45 buses and 6 cars in the bus lane.

At Banbury Road during the evening rush hour there were 19 cars, 52 buses and 22 taxis in the bus lane.

During the evening rush hour at Botley Road there were 3 cars, 32 and 7 taxis in the bus lane.

During evening rush hour in the London Road London there were 12 cars, 46 buses and no taxis in the bus lane.

During the evening rush hour at Woodstock Road there were 6 cars, 25 buses and 1 taxi in the bus lane."

She observed that:

"The striking conclusion is that the observed levels of taxi use in these bus lanes. There is no single type of correlation visible - either positive or negative.

It is also clear that the volume of taxis in relation is low. This fact also makes it unlikely that private car drivers are, en masse, ignoring the signs that show the bus lanes are not for them, and following taxis in the bus lanes. There were a small number of observed followings from the taxi rides, but these are minute in comparison to the number of cars using the bus lanes in ways that are, it appears from the volume, unconnected to taxi use.

Observations of traffic flows in bus lanes show that private cars do not tend to follow taxis into bus lanes, but that they illegally use bus lanes in high numbers when road design, such as left-hand turnings makes it expedient to do so. This problem, rather than the presence of relatively low numbers of taxis, is likely to cause delay to buses or cyclists.

Given the low level of bus lanes by taxis, the very occasional following of a taxi into a bus lane observed by the taxi passenger does not appear to cause a significant problem."

Miss McShane says if that evidence had been before the County Council they would inevitably have come to (or might have come to) a separate or a different conclusion and that it was unreasonable for them to come to their conclusion without carrying out the monitoring process.

The question arises, were the County Council entitled, through their members and all these various committees, to use their own observations and common sense to decide whether the presence of taxis in a bus lane was likely to be of advantage in the flow of traffic for the public generally? They concluded that the buses were more likely to travel more speedily and without interference if there were not taxis in the bus lane. It is very difficult to fault that conclusion. It is, to me, self-evident, the more traffic there is in the bus lanes, the less speedily buses will move. They were entitled to form the view which they had formed from their own observations that this was the risk. I do not put it any higher than that. There was a risk that if taxis went down the bus lane then private hire vehicles would follow. Again, it is self-evident, irrespective of taxis going in the bus lanes, that private citizens do use bus lanes. But anything that discourages private citizens from using the bus lane is to be encouraged. The whole purpose of this exercise was to ensure that the general public had the use of public service vehicles to the best advantage of the public.

Accordingly, I am not persuaded that it was unreasonable for these bodies to form their own view, either from their own experience, or applying their own sense, and to come to a conclusion that the exclusion of taxis from bus lanes was likely to be conducive to the proper movement of public service vehicles in these particular roads.

I turn therefore to the third question which arises, namely should there have been a public inquiry? There is power to hold a public inquiry, by reg 9(1) of Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1989. Mr Leverton, who is the officer concerned deposed that public inquiries are used in cases either of serious public importance or where a case attracts substantial public interest. He cited what had happened in Banbury where there were more than 40 letters of objection. Miss McShane says that in this case there were many more objections from a large number of people, taxi drivers, members of public and the Parish Council. I do not think this is a question of counting heads. The question of the public inquiry was considered by the Sub-Committee when they met in February. That was dealt with in this way. The officer said this:

"Attention is drawn to the request by the COLTA Secretary that the proposed orders be submitted to a public inquiry. This is a question for members but, bearing in mind that there appears to be no objection to the principle of extension of the bus lanes per se, the subordinate issues as to the allocation of road space between classes of vehicle are not so radical or complex, or the subject of such a degree of public concern, the delay and expense of a public inquiry is not seen by your officers as necessary or desirable."

The Committee ruled out a public inquiry. What is said by Miss McShane is that there was to be a public inquiry generally in the OTS in any event. So far as delay is concerned, that was not a matter of any great concern. The question of who should be allowed to use the bus lanes was of great interest to the members represented by the Oxford City Council, by the Parish Council and by the objectors.

It seems to me that the question of whether or not a public inquiry should be held was essentially a matter for the Committee. If I had to make a decision I would take the view that a public inquiry was quite unnecessary. However, that is not for me to decide. I have to decide whether the Committee should have ordered a public inquiry. In my judgment, they were perfectly entitled not to.

Finally, it is submitted that the respondent's policy was to give priority to public transport and public transport means, and it is accepted, taxis. The failure to allow taxis is therefore in breach of that policy. I take the view that the County Council were perfectly entitled, in relation to giving priority to public transport, to make a distinction between various forms of public transport. They were not bound under the policy to give priority to taxis in addition to giving priority to buses. Giving priority to public transport is a general phrase which they have followed, namely, by providing bus lanes for public service vehicles. Accordingly, I think there is nothing in this point at all. For all those reasons, this application must be dismissed.

DISPOSITION:
Application dismissed with costs.

SOLICITORS:
Michael Demidecki, London; Legal Services, Oxfordshire County Council