Green Lane Association Limited v Central Bedfordshire Council

Applicants seeking Aarhus costs protection must comply with the procedural timetable requiring the protection to be claimed at the outset and any challenge or application to vary the cap to be raised in the acknowledgment of service. A late challenge requires relief from sanctions. The Denton test applies, and the seriousness of the breach, absence of good reason and need for early costs certainty may justify refusing relief.

For Aarhus purposes, the question is whether the national legal provisions allegedly contravened relate to the protection or regulation of the environment. The court must examine their wording, context and purpose. It is insufficient that the challenged decision merely affects the environment. Provisions regulating traffic may nevertheless qualify where they expressly address amenity, air quality, environmental damage or related environmental considerations.

The claimant challenged an experimental traffic regulation order prohibiting motorised vehicles on a byway open to all traffic. The claim was brought under paragraph 35 of Part VI of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and claimed Aarhus costs protection.

The defendant failed to challenge Aarhus status or seek variation of the costs cap in its acknowledgment of service. It later applied for an extension of time under the Civil Procedure Rules and, alternatively, for a declaration that the claim was outside the Aarhus regime. The issues were whether relief from sanctions should be granted and whether the statutory provisions relied upon in the claim were national law relating to the environment.

1. Relief from sanctions. The defendant’s applications were late. The rules require an Aarhus challenge and any application to vary the costs cap to be raised at the acknowledgment-of-service stage. The breach was serious and significant because the claimant had relied on the apparent acceptance of costs protection and remained unaware of the dispute for 21 days.
2. No good reason for the delay had been advanced. The fact that the application was made at an early stage and that material prejudice was not shown did not provide a good reason. Considering all the circumstances under the third stage of Denton v TH White Ltd, relief from sanctions was refused.
3. Aarhus status. The applicable question was whether sections 1, 9 and 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 were provisions of national law relating to the protection or regulation of the environment. The relevant assessment concerned the wording, context and purpose of the provisions, rather than merely the environmental effect of the challenged decision.
4. Section 122 had to be read as a whole. Its references to local amenities, the preservation or improvement of areas through which roads run, and the national air quality strategy involved environmental considerations. Section 1 likewise addressed prevention of damage, the character of roads and the preservation or improvement of amenities. These matters gave the provisions an environmental purpose.
5. The council’s stated reasons for the order, including protection and preservation of the byway’s surface, promotion of amenity value and prevention of fly-tipping, reinforced that conclusion. The claim therefore fell within the Aarhus costs-protection regime, subject possibly to the final equality-duty ground. The defendant’s application was refused, and no separate decision on varying the cap was required.