AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

OBJECTIONS TO PARKING

24th June 1955, Page 45
24th June 1955
Page 45
Page 45, 24th June 1955 — OBJECTIONS TO PARKING
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

By Our Legal Adviser

THE increasingly overcrowded state of the roads and the consequent steady worsening of the parking problem are very much of topical controversy. No one who looked dispassionately at it, however, would deny that it is simply a question of balancing the numerous conflicting interests and that this means in many cases that the interests of some parties must give way.

A recent sheriff's court decision in Scotland is of interest, because it is a reminder of a little-known method of recourse to law when such interests as the public good and those of private frontagers clash and also because it gives an indication of what considerations the law may take into account.

Section 120 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, applies only to Scotland, but its exactly equivalent provisions as applied to England and Wales are to be found in Section 68 of the Public Health Act, 1925. By them, local authorities may (outside the London Traffic Area) by Order authorize the use as a parking place of a street within their districts.

There is a proviso, however, whereby: 'Nu such order shall authorize the

use of any part of a street so as unreasonably to prevent access to any premises adjoining the street, or the use of the street by any person entitled to the use thereof, or so as to be a nuisance."

Any "person aggrieved" by such an Order, after having his objections rejected by the local authority, may appeal against it to the local magistrates' court—in Scotland, the sheriff's court— and the court may allow or disallow the Order. The case of McLeash v. Edinburgh Corporation is the first reported example of such an appeal.

The corporation had proposed a central parking strip in a 40-ft.-wide road of entirely residential character. The residents objected to this on four grounds: (I) That a nuisance would be caused by the noise, litter and so on of bus or coach parties; (2) thata centre parking strip was an added danger to children moving about or crossing the road; (3) that the free flow of traffic would be more restricted or impeded by central parking than by kerbside parking, and (4) that access to the drives and garages of the houses would be unreasonably prevented by narrowing the angle of approach.

For the residents, a town-planning expert gave evidence that central parking was essentially bad planning.

In dismissing the appeal, the sheriff said that when the Act was passed parking was not such a problem. Today, if such statutory provisions were made, one would expect town-planning and zoning considerations to be taken into account.

However, as the law stood, the issue for the court was not whether central parking was good or bad, or whether alternatives existed. Nor should the appeal succeed if the proposed parking merely caused inconvenience or was injurious to amenities.

The first ground of appeal might be valid, but it did not apply to the case, as there was no intention to use it for such vehicles and there was no evidence that a central parking strip was an added danger to children. The third and fourth grounds gave rise to real difficulty, but the operative word was " prevent " and not "impede," and he was not satisfied that such was the case.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus