Earlier today the High Court heard case AC-2024-LON-003835 – Emma Rose vs Cambridgeshire County Council before Mrs Justice Lang DBE. Emma Rose (the claimant) was challenging the County Council’s Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) which restricted most private motor traffic from crossing Mill Road bridge.
While judgment in the case is not expected for some time, we thought it would be of interest to provide a summary of the proceedings. Some supporters of a low-traffic Mill Road were observing in court, and this summary is taken from the notes made by one of them.
Please note that none of what follows is a legal opinion – it is a layperson’s understanding of the main points that were discussed during the hearing and is based on contemporaneous notes that our supporter made. It is possible therefore that these notes contain errors, and they certainly should not be relied on in any legal context.
The Grounds
The four grounds for Ms Rose’s case against the county council’s Traffic Regulation order are:
- That it is “unreasonable to make the TRO for reasons that are unsupported by evidence”.
- Failure to provide legally adequate reasons.
- The county council “erred in failing to take into account the petition conducted by the Mill Road Traders’ Association” (MRTA).
- The county council “granted the TRO for an improper motive or purpose”.
Points 1, 2, & 4 saw related points being made together at times, and they are reported together below. The petition is the other matter.
1/2/4: Pollution and traffic reduction
The claimant’s lawyers claim that:
- the TRO documentation says that it “will” reduce pollution but that the County Council officer’s report is not so clear cut and is more like “may”.
- there are various places where the officer report makes clear that the council is not clear if pollution will be reduced.
- the council are being “certain” in the TRO vs “aspirational outcomes” in the officer report.
- the two examples given in the officer’s report of 1) the 2019 bridge closure and 2) a separate TRO relating to Vinery Road traffic restrictions both show a lack of traffic reduction on other roads – they may show no increase, but not “reduction”.
In response, the council’s lawyers provide a run through of the officer report, and claim that:
- there was a degree of unpredictability, and that this was acknowledged in the report.
- issues of anticipated possible traffic displacement and pollution levels are a matter of judgement either way, not hard facts.
- the Vinery Road instance is more relevant than the 2019 full bridge closure for 8 weeks because the former is a longer-term change. It shows increases in cycling and no increase in motor traffic on surrounding roads.
- members clearly and appropriately took different views as to the data: Cllr Count said there wasn’t enough, and voted against, Cllr Ferguson said he was a data-orientated
person and felt it was fine and voted in favour. This showed the court would not be right to challenge this. - this was all standard democratic process and norms, i.e. a matter for council members to decide on, and not for the High Court to judge.
- the standard needed for the court to strike down a TRO process is that something has gone “clearly and radically wrong”, and that is not the case here – the claimant’s position is marginal.
3: Whether the petition should have been taken into account
The claimant’s lawyers claim that:
- the petition raises issues beyond the TRO itself, and that it should have been taken into account as it was a relevant matter
- the petition numbers outweighing those in the Spring 2022 GCP consultation report means that the 72% majority in favour of bridge restrictions from the latter should not have been relied upon
- the petition should have been considered by the Highways and Transport committee.
The judge asks the claimants why this conclusion should be read into the County Council constitution when Section 7.1(b) of that constitution states that a petition in respect of a TRO is to be considered by a senior officer.
The council’s lawyers responded that:
- the council’s constitution is clear, especially when comparing clause (b) to (a). TRO-related petitions should go to the senior officer, which is what happened.
- the reason is clear for this: the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 set out a specific procedure for TROs. This sets clear limits and requirements for judging a TRO.
- the council’s constitution is intended to avoid the situation of ambiguity as to whether the TRO process takes precedence over other things like a petition. In fact, it seeks to avoid the exact situation being debated today.
- it would therefore not have been correct to take the petition into account in a formal sense.
- the officer did reference the petition in the Officer Report. He correctly made reference to it and rightly did not say it should be completely ignored.
- the Highways and Transport committee members were aware of it – there were 7 or so points in the transcript of the debate where members were taking account of it.
- the MRTA was a Statutory Consultee, so they had already had the opportunity to raise the issues in the petition in their TRO response.
- the petition cannot be said to have the same status as TRO signatures. The petition was not subject to the same formal checking process.
- The council’s lawyers argued that fake signatures and the presence of duplicates meant the petition was not a good proxy for level of objection or support. Only the TRO consultation could provide that.
The claim about £4.3m from the Mayor
- The judge noted that the £4.3m seems to be barely referenced in the claimant’s case.
- This was not raised by the claimant’s lawyers as one of the Grounds.
What happens now
- The judge will consider and write up her judgment.
- The parties will then get a draft for comment.
- This probably means a 2-6 week wait for the outcome.