Green Lane Association Limited v Oxford County Council

This paper determination records a consent outcome, not a contested ruling on the validity of traffic regulation orders. The court quashed an order after the council accepted that its 1.5m vehicle-width restriction differed from the 1.6m limit on which its approval decision was based.

The claimant’s other grounds were left undecided and preserved for any future order.

Green Lane Association Limited challenged under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 an order made by Oxfordshire County Council restricting motor vehicles and certain horse-drawn carriages on Cornhill Lane, an unmetalled byway open to all traffic. The central issue for the court was whether to make the parties’ agreed order quashing the traffic order.

The council accepted that the made order imposed a 1.5m vehicle-width limit, although the version approved by the council was based on a 1.6m limit. The parties agreed to quashing, while preserving their positions on the claimant’s other grounds.

1. The claim was allowed by consent and the traffic order was quashed for the reasons in the Agreed Statement of Reasons. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of £7,595.40, including VAT.
2. The defendant accepted the claimant’s third ground: the made order restricted vehicle width to 1.5m, while the council’s decision to make the order was based on an amendment to 1.6m. The made order therefore did not reflect the version approved by the council.
3. The other proposed grounds were not determined. Any future consideration of whether to remake the order would have to address those points afresh. The parties’ consent preserved their positions on those grounds and the claimant’s right to challenge any further order.
4. Fordham J determined the matter on the papers and explained that a short public judgment was appropriate to promote open justice, referring to §24.4 fn 516 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2026.