County council defeats High Court challenge to traffic regulation order

Robert Palmer KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, dismissed the application from the group, which promotes motorcycling on unsealed and minor sealed public roads.

Lincolnshire’s order covers lanes known as Sewstern Lane and The Drift and was principally made because of damage to the surfaces by motorised vehicles, which had made sections unsuitable for pedestrians.

It prohibits any motor or horse drawn vehicle from using the roadway, which forms part of the Viking Way long distance walking route, subject to certain specified exemptions

Mr Palmer said the TRF was aggrieved because the order excluded trail riders from the lanes, and argued the damage caused was not attributable to trail riders, but to 4x4 vehicles and agricultural vehicles.

It challenged the order on five grounds:

1. Lincolnshire did not investigate, attempt to resolve, or resolve the extent to which 4x4 and land management vehicles and two-wheeled vehicles had damaged the lanes and there was no evidence that two-wheeled vehicles had caused any damage;
2. The reasons given for rejecting an order that allowed powered two-wheelers were irrational, and/or based on wrong or irrelevant considerations;
3. Reasons for rejecting a permit scheme were irrational, and/or based on wrong or irrelevant considerations;
4. The TRF's suggestion of an exception for organised rallies was not addressed;
5. The order was made for an improper purpose to secure that public highway vehicular highways exclusively for pedestrians and equestrians to promote the Viking Way project.

Dealing with these in turn, Mr Palmer said: “I do not accept [the TRF’s] submission that there was ‘no evidence’ that damage had been caused by motorcycles.

“Evidence had been provided over many years to the effect that damage had been caused not only by 4x4s but also by motorcycles.

“The council's decision to make an order excluding both from use of the lanes (subject to the permitted exceptions) did not require any prior determination as to the precise allocation of responsibility between the two. It was enough that they both contributed.”

He said there had been multiple reports of motorcycles causing damage to the surface and Lincolnshire “did not simply accept those reports at face value, but conducted its own site visit”.

These led to a report with photographs judged by officers to show damage caused by motorcycles.

“There was therefore a sufficient evidential basis upon which the council was rationally entitled to conclude that damage had been caused to the surface by motorcycles, alongside other vehicles including 4x4s,” Mr Palmer found.

He dismissed the second ground, saying the council had determined that motorcycles damaged the surface and their continued access would impede recovery of the surfaces .

On ground 3 he said Lincolnshire’s reasons for rejecting a permit scheme “fall far short of the high threshold of irrationality.

“The TRF's reasons for challenging the council's reasons again amount to disagreement with them. It cannot be said that the council acted without evidence nor that it could not logically arrive at its conclusion; nor can it be said that it irrationally failed to investigate the matter.”

Ground 4 was dismissed on the basis that the order did allow for such events so long as they did not cause damage.

The final ground failed because Mr Palmer found “there is nothing in this complaint”.

He explained: “The purposes of the TRO fell within the purposes permitted under section 1 of the 1984 Act. The purpose of the TRO was to protect the lanes from further significant damage, which had given rise to danger to those using it, and to allow its restoration.

“This was consistent with the council's aim to promote the Viking Way as a valuable walking route for pedestrians, but the effect was not to downgrade the lanes to a bridleway.”

In conclusion, Mr Palmer said Lincolnshire “expressly proceeded on the basis that the need for the prohibition on motorcycles on the lanes could be reassessed when the condition of the lanes had reached a sustainable level of maintenance to accommodate them.

“The TRF will no doubt be astute in reminding the council of that position in future; the council will no doubt undertake such further reviews as it considers appropriate to monitor whether that position has been reached.”

Mark Smulian