Introduction

Trail Riders Fellowship v. Hampshire County Council ([2019] WLR(D) 411) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on July 18, 2019. The dispute arose when the Trail Riders Fellowship (TRF), a national organization advocating for the preservation of vehicular green lanes and the rights of motorcyclists to use them, challenged a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) imposed by Hampshire County Council. The TRO prohibited the use of three rural lanes—Bosenhill Lane, Green Lane, and Dark Lane—by motor vehicles and motorcycles. The TRF contended that Hampshire failed to comply with its statutory duties under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"), prompting an appeal to quash the TRO.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court initially dismissed the TRF's challenge to the TRO. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The core of the judgment focused on whether Hampshire County Council had adequately complied with its duties under Section 122 of the 1984 Act when issuing the TRO. The appellant argued that Hampshire failed to consider crucial factors, notably the report from the Road Policing Unit (RPU), which was not adequately disclosed to the decision-maker. However, the appellate judges, including Lord Justice Longmore, Lord Justice Lewison, and Lord Justice Coulson, concluded that Hampshire had fulfilled the substantive requirements of Section 122. They emphasized that explicit mention of Section 122 was not mandatory, provided the council conducted a proper balancing exercise of competing interests. Additionally, the court accepted that the RPU's confused response did not materially prejudice the TRF's position, thus dismissing the appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced prior case law to interpret Section 122's requirements. Notably:

• UK Waste Management v West Lancashire District Council [1996] RTR 411: Emphasized the "so far as practicable" qualifier in Section 122, highlighting the necessity of a balanced consideration of various factors.
• Trail Riders Fellowship v Powys County Council [2013] EWHC 2142 (Admin): Demonstrated the importance of considering access and reasonable movement when issuing TROs.
• R (LPC Group) v Leicester County Council [2002] EWHC 2485: Asserted that statutory considerations must be deduced primarily from the council's statement of reasons.
• R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56: Confirmed the application of the "Sedley criteria" for statutory consultations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's analysis hinged on whether Hampshire County Council had, in substance, adhered to Section 122, even if it did not explicitly reference it. The judges underscored that the duty to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) is a qualified duty necessitating a balancing of various factors outlined in Section 122(2). The council's documentation and decision-making process demonstrated this balance, considering pedestrian safety, amenity impacts, and environmental concerns.

Regarding the consultation with the RPU, the appellate court acknowledged the appellant's argument but concluded that the RPU's confused response did not materially influence the decision. The judges opined that the omission did not constitute a substantial prejudice to the TRF, especially given the overall robust balancing exercise conducted by the council.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the principle that compliance with statutory duties under Section 122 does not necessitate explicit references within the council's documents, provided that the underlying statutory obligations are substantively met. It underscores the judiciary's emphasis on the substance over form in administrative decisions, particularly in the context of traffic regulation. Furthermore, the case clarifies the application of the "Sedley criteria" in statutory consultations, emphasizing that the quality and integration of consultation feedback are paramount.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

This section imposes a duty on local authorities to ensure the smooth and safe movement of traffic (including pedestrians) when making Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). It requires authorities to consider factors like access to properties, the impact on local amenities, and other relevant matters.

Traffic Regulation Order (TRO)

A TRO is a legal instrument used by local authorities to regulate traffic on specific roads. It can impose restrictions like banning certain types of vehicles, setting speed limits, or altering traffic flow to enhance safety and convenience.

Sedley Criteria

Derived from the case R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Gunning (1985), the Sedley criteria outline the requirements for valid statutory consultations. They ensure that consultations are conducted fairly and that authorities genuinely consider feedback when making decisions.

Balancing Exercise

In the context of Section 122, a balancing exercise involves weighing the need for traffic movement against other factors like local amenities and safety. Authorities must evaluate the benefits and drawbacks to arrive at a decision that aligns with statutory obligations.

Conclusion

The case of Trail Riders Fellowship v. Hampshire County Council serves as a significant affirmation of the judiciary's stance on administrative compliance with statutory duties. It underscores that while formal references to legislative provisions like Section 122 are not mandatory within administrative documents, the essence of statutory obligations must be meticulously fulfilled through substantive decision-making processes. The judgment reinforces the importance of balanced considerations in issuing TROs and clarifies the expectations surrounding statutory consultations. For local authorities, this case delineates the boundaries of administrative discretion, emphasizing that as long as the core duties are met in substance, procedural oversights may not necessarily render decisions invalid.