A & E Baines v The North Yorkshire Council

A local authority may make some traffic regulation orders while other proposed orders are being modified, provided that course is not legally or irrationally impermissible. A resolution approving a revised scheme and requiring a satisfactory public engagement outcome does not, without clear language, require further formal consultation before orders are made. Public engagement is not necessarily consultation. A legitimate expectation of consultation requires a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation. On a challenge to an officer’s report, the question is whether, fairly read as a whole, it materially misled the decision-maker or contained a distinct material defect. Technical documents need not be specifically drawn to the decision-maker’s attention unless they are so obviously material that deciding without them would be irrational. The duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires a substantive balancing exercise, not express recitation.

A & E Baines Ltd applied under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to quash four traffic regulation orders made by North Yorkshire Council for Lower Station Parade, Harrogate. The orders introduced a short combined bus and cycle lane, one-way traffic, and associated turning restrictions.

The High Court, sitting in the Administrative Court, dismissed the application in [2025] EWHC 2010 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether the Council was required to undertake further public consultation, whether it could make four orders while a fifth proposed order was being modified, and whether its consideration of statutory purposes, evidence and material considerations was lawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s role was supervisory. It was concerned with legality, not the merits of the traffic scheme or the policy choices underlying it.

2. The meaning of the Council’s resolution was an objective question, assessed by reading the resolution as a whole and in context, having regard to its natural and ordinary meaning, purpose, common sense and, where appropriate, the underlying report. The approach in Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [20216] UKSC 25; [2016] 1 WLR 85 applied.

3. The resolution approved the descoping options comprising the revised scheme and delegated approval of details. The listed matters, including satisfactory traffic regulation orders and a satisfactory public engagement outcome, were conditions to implementation. The resolution prescribed no sequence between them. It therefore did not require public engagement to precede the making of the orders.

4. In context, public engagement did not require a further formal consultation involving publication of proposals, representations and reconsideration. The revised scheme had itself followed consultation, and the statutory consultation process for traffic regulation orders was distinct. Nor did the resolution create a legitimate expectation of further consultation: the necessary promise had to be clear, unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification, as stated in R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex p. MFK Unerwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545 at 1569G-H.

5. There was no legal prohibition on making the four orders while modifying the fifth proposed order under Regulation 14. There was a reasonable prospect that the fifth order would be made. If it were not, the Council might later need to consider the implications for the four orders, including possible revocation, but its chosen course was not irrational.

6. The principles in Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1275 governed the section 122 exercise. The duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, including pedestrians, was qualified rather than paramount. It had to be balanced with the effect on local amenities, other relevant matters and the purposes in section 1. Compliance was a matter of substance and could be evident without express reference to section 122.

7. Fairly read as a whole, the 2024 report was a clear analysis of the statutory purposes, expediency and balancing exercise. It did not materially mislead the decision-maker or contain a distinct material defect. The Court did not accept that the decision necessarily required the expert technical evidence relied upon on appeal.

8. The documents relied upon were not so obviously material that it would have been irrational to decide without drawing them specifically to the decision-maker’s attention. The report considered the relevant issues, including traffic use, safety, carbon emissions, access and sustainable transport. The principles in R (Mansell) v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314; [2019] PTSR 1452, R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] PTSR 190 and Keep Chiswell Green v Secretary of State for Housing and others [2025] EWCA Civ 958 supported that conclusion.

9. Questions concerning the distinction between making an order, its coming into force and its enforceability, including notice requirements, did not arise for decision and were left for a case in which they were necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 257, the appeal was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: In [2025] EWHC 2010 (Admin), the application to quash the four traffic regulation orders was dismissed.