Green Lane Association Limited & Anor v Central Bedfordshire Council

An experimental traffic order must identify a genuine experiment and explain its purpose. The statement of reasons must describe the nature of the experiment sufficiently to enable the public to understand the proposals and decide whether, and on what grounds, to object.

A traffic authority considering an order must substantially perform the section 122 balancing exercise. It must bear in mind the duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, consider factors favouring restriction, and balance the competing considerations.

At the consultation stage, reasons must permit intelligent consideration and response. An experimental order does not remove the public sector equality duty. The decision-maker must make a conscious assessment by reference to protected characteristics.

Two claimants challenged the same experimental traffic regulation order made by Central Bedfordshire Council under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The order prohibited mechanically propelled vehicles on Sandy Lane, a byway open to all traffic.

The challenge followed the quashing by consent of an earlier order after the Council accepted that it had failed to consult properly under regulation 6 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

The issues were whether the 2025 order was genuinely experimental, whether adequate reasons had been given, whether the statutory balancing exercise and consultation duties had been complied with, whether the public sector equality duty had been discharged, whether the Council had a sufficient evidence base, and whether it had regard to local access forum advice.

1. The claims succeeded and the 2025 experimental traffic regulation order was quashed. The order was outside the relevant powers because the statement of reasons did not explain what the experiment was. It referred generally to anti-social behaviour and the wider area, but did not identify the operation designed to obtain information about the scheme’s practical effects. The officer report gave a different principal reason, focused on erosion, creating an inconsistency rather than resolving an ambiguity.
2. The reasons required by paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Regulations serve to enable the public to understand the proposals, particularly the nature of the experiment, so that informed objections may be made. The fuller planning standard in South Buckinghamshire DC v Porter (No 2) was not directly applicable at that preliminary stage. Even on that standard, however, the reasons were inadequate because the alleged anti-social behaviour and unsuitable vehicles were not identified with sufficient clarity. The First Claimant suffered substantial prejudice.
3. The Council failed to perform the substantive balancing exercise required by section 122 of the 1984 Act. It did not identify, expressly or by implication, the duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of all traffic, did not explain how competing interests were balanced, and did not properly consider suggested less restrictive alternatives.
4. The regulation 6 consultation was unlawful. The reasons supplied at the formative stage did not permit intelligent consideration and response as required by the Gunning principles. There was no separate breach of the requirement to conscientiously consider the consultation material.
5. The Council breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Although an experimental order may require a less demanding assessment because its effects are monitored over time, the decision-maker still had to consider the impact by reference to protected characteristics. Referring only to drivers of off-road vehicles was insufficient.
6. The Council had taken reasonable steps to inform itself for the purposes of the Tameside duty, and the challenge based on an insufficient evidence base or irrationality failed. The challenge based on failure to have regard to local access forum advice also failed because the forum’s statement was read to the decision-making meeting.