The Defendant sought to close to motorised vehicles an unmetalled byway open to all traffic called Sandy Lane, one of the last such routes in Bedfordshire. This was effected by an experimental traffic order made in March 2025. This was the Defendant’s second attempt to do this, the first having been quashed by consent. 

The Claimant, a membership organisation which protects and promotes the responsible use of the UK's network of unsurfaced, unclassified roads and green lanes argued that the experimental order was unlawful on five grounds.  The Deputy High Court Judge upheld all of those grounds, finding that the order was ultra vires as not made for an experimental purpose; that the Defendant had failed to discharge its duty to give reasons for making the order and for proceeding by way of experiment; that it had not discharged the overarching duty in section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; that the Defendant had not provided adequate information to permit the Claimant to make an informed response to the consultation prior to the making of the order, applying the second of the Gunning/Sedley principles; and that the Defendant had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, by failing to consider at all the differential effects of the order of those with protected characteristics. 

The claim was heard together with another challenge to the same order brought by the Trail Riders Fellowship. 

This case is a textbook demonstration of local authority decision-making being successfully interrogated on public law grounds. 

Of particular interest is the Court’s careful consideration of the important question as to whether or not the statement of reasons disclosed a genuine experiment, having regard to its own content and its contradiction by other material. 

Of note also are the Court’s comments on the standard of reasons required from statements of reasons for experimental orders, finding that there was a need to apply the classic statement of the standard of reasons in the South Buckinghamshire case in the light of the particular stage of the decision-making process at which the reasons were being given. 

Finally, at an earlier stage in these proceedings, the High Court determined that the claim was entitled to Aarhus costs protection, having regard to and applying the recent case law from the Court of Appeal in HM Treasury v Global Feedback Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 624, a decision with implications for other traffic order challenges.

Brendan Brett acted for the Claimant, Green Lane Association Ltd, instructed by Richard Buxton Solicitors. 

A copy of the judgment is available here.