Trail Riders Fellowship v Lincolnshire County Council

A traffic authority may prohibit a class of vehicles where there is sufficient evidence that the class contributes to highway damage or would impede restoration. It need not determine the precise share of responsibility between different vehicle types. Under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, the authority must consider the duty to secure expeditious, convenient and safe movement, have regard to factors favouring restriction, and balance the competing considerations. Judicial review does not permit the court to substitute its view for a rational evaluative judgment. A traffic authority need not address every objection individually where the substance has been considered and the outcome would inevitably be unchanged. A prohibition made to prevent damage, danger and loss of amenity is not rendered improper merely because it also promotes pedestrian use of a recreational route.

The claimant, the Trail Riders Fellowship, challenged a traffic regulation order made by Lincolnshire County Council under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The order prohibited motor vehicles and horse-drawn vehicles on sections of Sewstern Lane and The Drift, subject to specified exemptions.

The claimant argued that the Council lacked an adequate evidence base concerning motorcycle damage, irrationally rejected motorcycle access and a permit scheme, failed to address an exemption for organised rallies, and acted for an improper purpose connected with the Viking Way. The claim raised whether the Council had acted within its statutory powers and rationally considered the objections and alternatives.

1. The claim was dismissed. None of the five grounds challenging the traffic regulation order was sustainable.
2. The Council had sufficient evidence that motorcycles, alongside 4x4s and other vehicles, had caused or contributed to damage to the Lanes. It was not required to determine the precise allocation of responsibility between vehicle types. Continued motorcycle use could also impede restoration of the damaged surfaces. The prohibition therefore related rationally to purposes within section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, including preventing damage and danger, facilitating pedestrian passage, preserving the character of a road suitable for pedestrians, and improving amenity.
3. The Council had adopted the approach stated by Longmore LJ in Trail Riders Fellowship Ltd v Hampshire County Council [2020] PTSR 194 at [40]: identify the section 122 duty, consider factors favouring restriction, and balance the competing considerations. The Council was entitled to conclude that motorcycle use should cease until the Lanes reached a sustainable condition, with the position to be reviewed later.
4. The Committee was entitled to proceed on the basis of the Officer Report. Individual comments in collective debate did not displace that inference. The Council’s reasons were not irrational, and the subsequent witness evidence permissibly elucidated, rather than replaced, the contemporaneous reasons.
5. The rejection of a permit scheme was rational. The Council was entitled to consider that unsupervised access could permit further damage and that the remote location made effective supervision and enforcement difficult.
6. Regulation 13 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 did not require the Officer Report to address every objection separately. The special written exemption mechanism in the TRO provided a sufficient route for any proposed rally to be considered on its merits.
7. The purpose of protecting the Lanes from damage and restoring them was within section 1. The fact that the TRO also promoted the Viking Way did not make its purpose improper. Pre-approval funding arrangements did not show that the Committee’s decision was predetermined.

First-instance judicial review claim. The judgment does not state any prior judicial decision in the same proceedings.