Stubbs (on behalf of Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement) v Lake District National Park Authority & Ors

Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 requires greater weight to be given to conservation where the two statutory National Park purposes cannot be satisfactorily accommodated through management or stewardship. It is not triggered by every tension or ordinary friction between conservation and public enjoyment. Whether the conflict has reached that point is a broad evaluative judgment for the National Park Authority.

The statutory duty in section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is engaged when the authority considers whether to make a Traffic Regulation Order after the statutory consultation process, not when it is assessing management options and deciding whether to begin that process. A consultation under regulation 4 of the National Park Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007 may take different forms, and officers need not explain every legally possible alternative.

The claimant, acting for GLEAM, sought judicial review of the Lake District National Park Authority’s decision concerning the unsealed sections of Tilberthwaite Road and High Oxen Fell Road. The Authority decided not to pursue a Traffic Regulation Order at that stage. It instead advised maintaining the road surfaces and, for Tilberthwaite Road, establishing a partnership management group.

The challenge alleged that the Authority had misinterpreted section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, had failed to comply with section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and had been wrongly advised about consultation under regulation 4 of the National Park Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. Section 5 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 places the conservation and public enjoyment purposes on an equal footing. Section 11A(2) resolves the deadlock where they can no longer both be satisfactorily accommodated. The word “conflict” does not refer to every disagreement or friction between the purposes. The Authority must first assess whether management or stewardship can reconcile them. If it judges that reconciliation is no longer possible and a choice must be made, conservation must receive greater weight. Descriptions such as acute, unresolvable or irreconcilable accurately identify that point, and are not an unlawful gloss on the statute.
2. The statutory and policy background, including the Sandford Report and government guidance, was consistent with that interpretation, although it was not decisive. The Authority’s assessment report therefore gave a reliable and legally accurate direction on section 11A(2).
3. Ground 2 dismissed. The Authority was considering management options and whether to begin the first stage of consultation, rather than deciding whether to make a Traffic Regulation Order. The section 122 duty of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 therefore was not yet engaged. It arises when the authority considers making the order after receiving the statutory consultation responses. In any event, the assessment report addressed the substance of the statutory balancing exercise, including the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of pedestrians, road damage, amenities, noise and pollution. No quantitative weighting exercise was required.
4. Ground 3 dismissed. Regulation 4 of the National Park Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007 permits a range of consultation approaches, depending on the facts and context. The officers were not legally required to explain every possible approach, including a consultation on the principle of pursuing a Traffic Regulation Order. Their advice, which identified the form of proposal, legal grounds and reasons that would be appropriate in this case, was consistent with the relevant DEFRA guidance and was not materially misleading.
5. The judicial review claim was dismissed.