High Court rejects challenge to traffic regulation orders affecting town centre

Under the TROs part of the town’s Lower Station Parade would be come a bus and cycle lane with the whole road converted to one-way traffic southbound, while there would be other restrictions on traffic movements in adjacent roads.

A&E Baines, whose premises are on one of the affected streets, made its challenge on these grounds:

1. it was unlawful to make the TROs without a public consultation;
2. the council unlawfully failed to take into account the totality of impacts when considering whether to make the TROs;
3. the TRO publicity was legally inadequate because the publicity documentation was materially misleading;
4. North Yorkshire unlawfully included claims either unsupported by adequate evidence or contrary to evidence before it, failed to take into account material considerations and gave inadequate reasoning;
5. it was unlawful to make TROs which implemented only part of the scheme while taking into account the benefits of the wider scheme and without any certainty that the remainder of the scheme would be delivered by further TROs.

CMG Ockelton, sitting as a judge of the High Court, said the first ground was not properly arguable.

He said: “[It] has to be seen as a claim that it is unlawful to proceed with the scheme by making the TROs. A glance at the November 2023 [council] Resolution shows immediately the difficulties in such an argument.”

Mr Ockelton said the resolution did not say or imply there would be further consultation before the scheme is implemented.

He said: “The phrase used is 'a satisfactory TRO and public engagement outcome'. 'Engagement' is not consultation: engagement can consist solely in publicity and communication, and the word (even when associated with ‘successful') does not to my mind imply any of the obligations arising out of consultation.”

The second ground was derived from the TROs that were made being fewer than the total needed to implement the entire Harrogate scheme. Mr Ockelton said: “I do not regard the second ground as arguable.”

There might be cases where it was irrational and therefore unlawful to bring into operation parts of an approved scheme without the whole scheme.

“But the position here is a very long way from that…TRO 6 was not essential for delivery of the scheme. Its abandonment therefore is nothing to the point.”

Turning to the consultation, Mr Ockelton said: “No reasonable reader of the document could have thought that it implied consultation on anything other than the TROs.”

The fourth ground concerned the information accompanying the TRO proposals, which A&E Baines argued “consisted of highly technical documents with a series of plans that were difficult to understand”.

Mr Ockelton said:”I do not accept that. There is no evidence that persuades me that it was the case.

“Those who purport by this argument not to have been able to understand them constitute the claimant, a property company with (no doubt) expertise in reading plans and technical drawings, and others with like experience (or at any rate who were capable of making identical responses to the consultation).

"There does not appear to be any evidence that the applicant sought any clarification of anything in the plans that was beyond the understanding of its officers or employees or that it was misled by any response to such request.”

He dismissed all other grounds and said the TRO stood.

Mark Smulian