The proposals, which were the subject of considerable controversy, involved the making of an Order prohibiting traffic from passing over the bridge, which is a major route into Cambridge from the east.

A bus gate was originally installed in June 2020 under an experimental order, but that was removed following a resolution of the Council’s Highways and Transport Committee on 27 July 2021.

Following a period of consultation, in March 2023 the Council resolved to make an order reinstating a modal filter on the bridge. That decision was challenged and, following the decision of James Strachan KC in Wesson v Cambridgeshire CC [2024] EWHC 1068 (Admin), allowing only in part the Council’s application to strike out that claim and/or for summary judgment, the order was quashed by consent.

The Council then conducted a further consultation. At the same time, objectors produced two petitions, including one by the Mill Road Traders’ Association which garnered 1,652 signatures opposing the closing of the bridge to general traffic.

Following consideration at a Committee meeting during which Members’ were advised that two petitions had been received on this matter, a further Order was made on 11 October 2024, and that Order was again challenged in the High Court.

Dismissing the claim, Lang J held that:

(1) Three were competing considerations and conflicting information before the Council, with a predictive judgment being required. Applying the test in R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649 at para. 98, it was entitled to exercise its judgment in favour of making the Order (J42-59). 

(2) The Council’s consultation exercise had provided sufficient information to enable members of the public and consultees to make an intelligent response to it. The Claimant’s criticisms of the Council as lacking in candour because it stated the outcomes it was seeking as reasonably certain when they were merely aspirational or possible was unjustified. The Council had meant what it said in its statement of reasons (J68).

(3) As regards the petition, these were not matters which the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, or the regulations made under it, expressly or impliedly require local traffic authorities to take into account when deciding whether or not to make traffic orders. They were not so obviously material that Parliament must have required the Council to take them into account (J76-81). In any event, the Council did have regard to the Mill Road Traders’ Association petition, but gave it no weight. That was not irrational (J82-90).

(4) The Council’s reasons for making the Order were adequate. The nature of the reasons require for a determination of a contested planning appeal between named parties will be different from the reasons provided by a local authority to multiple objectors as part of the statutory process of making a traffic order (J98). The statement of reasons provided was a proper and sufficient formal statement of the reasons for making the order, and the officers report provided further detailed information. Reasons for reasons were not required (J90-107).

A copy of the judgment is available here.

Stephanie Bruce-Smith acted for the Claimant instructed by Fortune Green Legal Practice.

Charles Streeten acted for the Defendant instructed by Pathfinder Legal Services.