Judge rejects legal challenge to traffic regulation order prohibiting private vehicle access across bridge in Cambridge

Mrs Justice Lang found against Emma Rose, who acted against Cambridgeshire County Council on behalf of local campaign the Friends of Mill Road Bridge 2.

Ms Rose challenged the council’s decision to install a bus gate to prohibit private vehicle access across Mill Road Bridge.

The traffic regulation order was made under sections 1(1) to 3 and Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

She argued that Cambridgeshire’s statement of reasons was based on a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained, that it made the order knowing the purported reasons cited in a consultation were “merely aspirational or possible outcomes”; that it failed to take account of a petition and so ignored a mandatory material consideration; and that the council failed to provide legally adequate reasons for making the order.

Access to Mill Road has long been controversial and was the subject of earlier proceedings.

On Ground 1, Lang J said the statement of reasons properly identified reasons for the orders and it was “unarguable that the [highways and transport] committee could not reasonably reach the conclusions in the statement of reasons on the basis of the material before it.

"There were competing considerations and conflicting information, and predictive judgments were required. But overall there was sufficient evidence upon which the committee could reasonably exercise its planning judgment in favour of the [order].

“This was a thinly-disguised challenge to the merits of the decision which was impermissible.”

Turning to Ground 2, Lang J said: “I consider that the claimant's criticism of the statement of reasons as lacking in candour, because it stated the outcomes as reasonably certain when they were merely aspirational or possible, is hypercritical and unjustified.

“In my view, the council meant what it said in the [statement]. I consider that the claimant's criticism arises from her strong disagreement with the council's views.

Lang J dismissed the third ground because the petition did not form part of the statutory consultation process and the council in any event did take it into account, though gave it little or no weight.

Finally, she dismissed the challenge over adequate reasons saying the statement was “a proper and sufficient formal statement of the reasons for making the [order].

"The objectors also had the benefit of an excellent [officer’s report] which provided further detailed information.”

She said: “In my judgment, the claimant's hypercritical and forensic critique of the [statement] and the [officer’s report] runs contrary to the guidance given [by] authorities…the claimant repeatedly demands reasons for reasons, and impermissibly requires the council to re-write the [statement] and the [officer’s report] in her own preferred way.”

Mark Smulian