A & E Baines v The North Yorkshire Council

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the lawfulness of four traffic regulation orders ("the Orders") made by Company A affecting a road in The City (referred to in the opinion as The Road running past the Bus and Railway Stations). The Orders introduced a combined bus and cycle lane for a 36 metre stretch of the southbound carriageway, converted The Road to one-way southbound for that stretch, and imposed additional restrictions on traffic movements and turning. The changes formed part of a revised scheme approved by Company A's executive on 28 November 2023, conditional on a number of matters including funding approval from Company B and a "satisfactory TRO and public engagement outcome".

The Appellant applied to quash the Orders under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Three grounds were central on the appeal: (1) that Company A lacked authority to make the Orders absent further public consultation; (2) that the Orders were unlawful because a related fifth proposed traffic regulation order had not been made; and (3) that Company A's consideration of purposes and the section 122 factors was unlawful because it relied on conclusions unsupported by evidence, omitted material considerations or gave inadequate reasons. Judge Ockelton, sitting in the High Court, dismissed the application. Permission to appeal was granted on those three grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the November 2023 executive resolution required further public consultation on the revised scheme before Company A could lawfully make the Orders.
2. Whether it was irrational or unlawful to make the four Orders when a fifth proposed traffic regulation order relevant to parking/revocations had not yet been made.
3. Whether Company A's decision-making was unlawful because it relied on conclusions unsupported by adequate evidence, failed to take into account material considerations, or provided inadequate reasoning (i.e. adequacy and accuracy of the decision-making materials and balancing under section 122 of the Act).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Hutton)

• The November 2023 resolution must be read to require public consultation on the revised scheme before implementation; the Orders implemented the revised scheme in whole or part and so were premature.
• It was unlawful or irrational to make the four Orders while the fifth proposed order (relating to parking/revocations) remained undecided, because the benefits relied upon assumed the fifth order would be made.
• The decision relied on technical reports (traffic modelling, road safety audit, carbon assessment) that either undermined claimed benefits or raised concerns; these materials were not properly presented to or considered by decision‑makers and thus the decision was unsupported by adequate evidence/reasoning and omitted material considerations.

Respondent's Arguments (Attorney Riley-Smith)

• The Orders did not implement the revised scheme such that further public consultation was a precondition; the resolution permitted the TRO process to proceed and the resolution’s reference to "public engagement" did not equate to a legal requirement for further public consultation before making TROs.
• There was nothing irrational in making the four Orders while modifying the fifth proposed order; the Regulations allow modification and staged decision-making, and the choice of sequencing was for Company A.
• The 2024 report and accompanying material fairly presented the issues; extracts relied on by the Appellant were taken out of context and did not show the report was misleading or that material considerations were ignored; the established approach to s.122 balancing (as in Trail Riders) was followed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court framed its supervisory role as ensuring Company A acted within legal powers and procedures, not to evaluate the merits of the revised scheme. The analysis proceeded in three strands corresponding to the three grounds of appeal.

On ground 1 (consultation): the court interpreted the November 2023 resolution objectively (following the approach in Trump International). The resolution approved the descoping options (the revised scheme) and delegated detail approval; it also listed a set of conditions that must be satisfied for the scheme to be implemented (including funding acceptance, affordability, satisfactory TROs and satisfactory public engagement). The resolution did not prescribe a sequence requiring public engagement to precede the making of TROs. The term "public engagement" in the report was distinguished from formal "consultation" under the Regulations; engagement can be publicity/communication and does not imply the statutory consultation process. The court rejected that the resolution gave rise to a legitimate expectation of further formal consultation.

On ground 2 (making Orders before fifth TRO): the court noted the 2024 report had considered five proposed TROs, concluded each served purposes in section 1 of the Act and that it was expedient to make them. The fifth proposed order (parking/revocation) was to be modified under Regulation 14 before making; there was no legal bar to making the four Orders while modifying the fifth. The possibility that the fifth might not be made did not render the decision irrational; any implications would be a matter for Company A to address thereafter.

On ground 3 (adequacy of materials and reasoning): applying the Trail Riders principles and the standard in Mansell/Mansell-type authority, the court asked whether the decision‑making report materially misled members or omitted distinct and material matters. The 2024 report set out the legal framework (sections 1 and 122, the Regulations), explained why the proposed TROs served section 1 purposes, and explained the expediency and balancing under section 122. The court examined the technical documents relied on by the Appellant (traffic modelling, a road safety audit, carbon assessment) and concluded that, read in context, they did not demonstrate the 2024 report was significantly or seriously misleading nor that the decision‑makers had been deprived of material information. The technical extracts did not show obvious mandatory material considerations had been omitted; safety issues and carbon impacts had been considered and did not oblige reversal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED

Holdings:

• The November 2023 executive resolution did not require formal public consultation on the revised scheme before Company A could lawfully make the traffic regulation orders; "public engagement" as used did not equate to the statutory consultation precondition.
• It was not irrational or unlawful to make the four Orders while a fifth proposed order was being modified and had not yet been made.
• The 2024 report and accompanying materials adequately addressed the legal issues; the decision was not shown to be based on conclusions unsupported by adequate evidence, to have omitted material considerations, or to provide inadequate reasoning such that it was unlawful.

Consequences: The Orders made by Company A on 10 January 2025 remain lawful and the Appellant's challenge was dismissed. The court did not treat the decision as creating a new legal precedent beyond applying established principles of statutory interpretation, legitimate expectation, and judicial review standards for TROs and the s.122 balancing exercise.