- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from an order of a High Court Judge in the Administrative Court dismissing a challenge brought by the Appellant to a traffic regulation order ("TRO") made by the Defendant council ("Company A"). The TRO prohibits mechanically propelled vehicles from using three linked rural green lanes near a rural locality in the county governed by Company A. The lanes are unclassified roads not recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement but appear on the council’s list of streets.
The Appellant is a national organisation dedicated to preserving vehicular rights on green lanes and represents motorcyclists. The Appellant sought to quash the TRO wholly or in part under Part VI of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the 1984 Act"). Company A is both the traffic and highway authority for the county.
Complaints about misuse and damage to the lanes by off-road vehicles arose in 2014, with photographic evidence showing deterioration and issues caused by deliberate obstruction and trespass. Company A officers, local councillors, and police representatives investigated and held meetings, concluding that a permanent TRO banning motor vehicles was necessary to address safety, damage, access, and nuisance concerns.
Company A followed statutory procedures including consultations, public notices, and consideration of objections, including those from the Appellant. The TRO was formally made in June 2018, with the decision supported by reports and endorsements from local police and community representatives.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Company A complied with its statutory duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) when making the TRO, having regard to relevant factors such as local amenities and access to premises.
- Whether the report from the road policing unit ("RPU") of the local police, which was not provided to the decision-maker, constituted a relevant consideration in law, and whether the judge correctly exercised discretion not to quash the TRO despite the decision-maker’s failure to consider this report.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The decision-maker should have been aware of and expressly considered the requirement of section 122; failure to do so requires quashing the order.
- The balancing exercise required by section 122 was not properly conducted, as the Statement of Reasons and officer’s report did not demonstrate such consideration.
- Company A failed to properly consult the RPU as required by statute; the RPU’s response was not passed to the decision-maker and thus was not considered, constituting a fatal flaw.
- Accordingly, the TRO should be quashed.
Defendant's Arguments
- Express reference to section 122 is not necessary if the balancing exercise was properly conducted in substance.
- The officer’s report demonstrated that the decision-maker struck the appropriate balance between the duty to secure movement of traffic and other relevant factors such as local amenities and nuisance.
- The RPU’s response was confused, wrong, and not a material consideration; failure to pass it to the decision-maker was not grounds to quash the TRO.
- The judge’s discretion not to quash the TRO despite the procedural defect was properly exercised and should not be disturbed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| UK Waste Management v West Lancashire District Council [1996] RTR 201 | Interpretation of s.122 duty; "so far as practicable" qualifies the duty to secure expeditious traffic movement rather than the duty to have regard to specified factors; requirement for a balancing exercise. | The court approved the balancing approach to s.122 and emphasized the need to consider competing factors in making TROs. |
| Trail Riders Fellowship v Powys County Council [2013] EWHC 2142 (Admin) | Requirement to consider reasonable access under s.122 before proceeding to balancing exercise. | The court confirmed that the balancing exercise under s.122 requires prior consideration of access issues. |
| R (LPC Group) v Leicester County Council [2002] EWHC 2485 | Relevant statutory considerations primarily ascertained from the council's statement of reasons. | The court noted the importance of the statement of reasons but the current court disagreed with primacy given to it over other evidence. |
| Wilson v Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority [2009] EWHC 1425 (Admin) | Necessity of bringing the balancing exercise required by s.122 to the authority's attention. | The court quashed TROs for failure to sufficiently consider s.122 balancing. |
| Williams v Devon County Council [2015] EWHC 568 (Admin) | Need for specific analysis of s.122 considerations in decision-making. | The court emphasized the importance of setting out the s.122 analysis. |
| Trail Riders Fellowship v Devon County Council [2013] EWHC 2104 (Admin) | Failure to refer expressly to s.122 does not necessarily mean failure to have regard to it. | The court accepted that s.122 duty can be satisfied implicitly. |
| Williams v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] EWHC 3907 | Sufficiency of satisfying statutory duty in substance, expressly or by implication. | The court held that substantive compliance with s.122 is sufficient. |
| In re Findlay [1985] A.C. 318 | Test of obvious materiality for relevant considerations in administrative decisions. | The court discussed the importance of materiality in determining relevant considerations. |
| Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30 | Ignorance of statutory duty by decision-maker does not necessarily mean non-compliance if duty is fulfilled in substance. | The court accepted that a decision-maker may comply with a duty despite lack of awareness. |
| R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168 | Criteria for lawful consultation (the "Sedley criteria"). | The court applied the criteria to assess whether consultation was properly conducted. |
| R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC 56 | Approval of the Sedley criteria for consultation. | The court confirmed the legal standards for consultation and the requirement to conscientiously consider consultation outcomes. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first considered the statutory framework under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, focusing on section 122 which requires local authorities to secure, so far as practicable, the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic, while having regard to factors including local amenities and access to premises.
The court emphasised that compliance with section 122 is a substantive balancing exercise rather than a formalistic requirement to expressly refer to the section in decision documents. The decision-maker’s report and statement of reasons must demonstrate that the relevant factors were weighed appropriately.
In this case, the officer’s report and decision letter showed consideration of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, access, safety, and amenity impacts, with explicit recognition of the need to balance competing interests. The court found that the section 122 duty was fulfilled in substance.
Regarding the failure to pass the RPU consultation response to the decision-maker, the court noted that the response was confused, misleading, and not supportive of the TRO. The local police constable responsible for enforcement strongly supported the TRO. The court held that the RPU report was not "so obviously material" as to be a relevant legal consideration requiring quashing of the TRO.
The court acknowledged that statutory consultation must be conscientiously considered but accepted the judge’s discretion not to quash the TRO given the circumstances, including the flawed nature of the RPU response and the support of local police enforcement.
The court rejected the submission that failure to expressly consider section 122 or the RPU response was fatal, concluding that the TRO was lawfully made and that the judge’s exercise of discretion to refuse relief was appropriate.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL.
The decision confirms that compliance with the statutory duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires a substantive balancing exercise rather than formalistic or express reference to the section. The court also clarifies that while statutory consultation responses are material considerations, failure to present a confused or non-material consultation response to the decision-maker may not warrant quashing, especially where discretion to refuse relief is properly exercised.
The immediate effect is that the TRO prohibiting motor vehicles on the three green lanes remains in force. No new precedent was set beyond reaffirming existing principles regarding statutory duties, consultation, and judicial discretion in the context of traffic regulation orders.
Alert