Green Lane Association v Central Bedfordshire Council: ETRO quashed for lack of genuine experimental purpose

The High Court has quashed an experimental traffic regulation order (ETRO) prohibiting motor vehicles on a Bedfordshire byway, finding multiple fundamental flaws in the local authority's decision-making process.

Central Bedfordshire Council made an ETRO in March 2025 prohibiting mechanically propelled vehicles from using Sandy Lane, a byway open to all traffic (BOAT) running through woodland designated as a County Wildlife Site. The order followed an earlier ETRO that had been quashed by consent in May 2024 due to inadequate consultation.

The stated reasons for the 2025 ETRO were to address "inappropriate usage" including anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, racing and use by unsuitable vehicles damaging the road surface. The Council claimed the experimental order would enable monitoring of the scheme's impact on anti-social behaviour and the wider area.

Green Lane Association Limited and Trail Riders Fellowship challenged the order under paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Absence of genuine experiment

Deputy High Court Judge Neil Cameron KC found the ETRO fell outside the scope of section 9 of the 1984 Act as it lacked a genuine experimental purpose. The statement of reasons failed to explain what the experiment actually was or identify any operation designed to glean information about the scheme's workings in practice.

Critically, the judge identified an inconsistency between the statement of reasons (focused on monitoring anti-social behaviour) and the officer report (focused on monitoring surface erosion). Neither document adequately explained the terms of the experiment or how information would be gathered and assessed.

Inadequate reasons

The reasons provided under paragraph 2(d) of Schedule 2 to the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 were found inadequate. The nature of "anti-social behaviour" was not described, and "unsuitable vehicles" were not identified. Without this clarity, potential objectors could not understand the Council's reasoning or formulate informed responses.

Whilst the judge acknowledged that reasons required at the ETRO stage need not meet the full standard applicable to decisions made after considering objections, they must still enable the public to understand the proposal's nature and consider whether to object.

Section 122 balancing exercise not undertaken

The Council failed to conduct the balancing exercise required by section 122 of the 1984 Act. The officer report did not articulate the primary statutory duty of securing expeditious, convenient and safe movement of all traffic, nor explain how competing interests were balanced. Although the disadvantage to off-road vehicle drivers was acknowledged, there was no proper weighing of factors for and against the restriction.

Public sector equality duty breach

The Council breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to have due regard to impacts on people with protected characteristics. The officer report referred only to "drivers of off-road vehicles" as a user type, without considering differential impacts on disabled or elderly people who rely on motorised access to the countryside.

Whilst an ETRO represents an early stage of decision-making and requires less demanding assessment than a permanent order, some specific regard to protected characteristics remains essential.

Consultation deficiency

The consultation under regulation 6 of the 1996 Regulations was also defective. The unclear experimental purpose meant consultees could not make intelligent representations on whether such an experiment should proceed, breaching the second Gunning principle requiring sufficient information for informed response.

The decision to make the 2025 ETRO has been quashed, with substantial prejudice found to the claimants' interests across multiple grounds.