High Court rejects challenge by motorcyclists over ban on use of three ‘green lanes’

Hampshire County Council has successfully defended a legal challenge brought by trail riders over its decision to prohibit the use of three linked ‘green lanes’ by motor vehicles and motor cyles.

The case of Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Court [2018] EWHC 3390 (Admin) concerned the Hampshire (Various Roads, Warnford) (Prohibition of Driving) (Except for Access) Order 2018, a traffic regulation order made by Hampshire, as traffic and highway authority for the county, under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The three lanes - Bosenhill Lane, Green Lane and Dark Lane - together form a through-route from Warnford to Brockwood Park, joining tarmacked public vehicular highways at their three termini.

They are unclassified roads which, although appearing on the council's list of streets under section 36 of the Highways Act 1980, are not recorded on its Definitive Map and Statement.

The Trail Riders Fellowship, the claimant, aims to preserve the full status of vehicular green lanes and the rights of motorcyclists to use them. It applied to quash wholly or in part the Order under Part VI, Schedule 9 of the 1984 Act.

The claimants advanced the following grounds:

1. The council had failed to identify a statutory purpose for which the Order was to be made in the draft order, the Statement of Reasons, the officer's report, the decision record or the Order itself. Thus it failed to direct itself that it could only make an order if it considered that it was expedient to do so for a statutory purpose and to satisfy itself that it was expedient to make an order for that purpose.

2. There was a breach of section 122 of the 1984 Act on the exercise of functions by local authorities.

3. There was an inadequate Statement of Reasons and also procedural unfairness.

4. There was a breach of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 and/or procedural unfairness.

5. There was a failure to consider the claimant's representations properly.

5A. There was procedural impropriety / a failure to consider results of consultation with the police.

6. The prohibition of all motor vehicles, in particular rejection of the claimant's alternative proposal, was irrational and/or otherwise unlawful where the council accepted that responsible motorcycle users would probably cause minimal damage to lanes.

Sir Ross Cranston concluded, however, that none of these grounds were made out and so he dismissed the challenge.