Wilson and Another v Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority: Admn 19 Jun 2009

The claimants, who promoted responsible motorsports challenged the defendant’s Traffic Regulation Order banning vehicular traffic on certain unsealed roads in the Dales, saying that there was nothing to show that the relevant committee had taken into account the necessary balancing exercise.
Held: The duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular traffic is that prescribed by section 122(1). However that duty takes effect so far as practicable in the light of the matters to be taken into account under section 122(b). In this case the absence if reference to the balancing exercise under section 122 was consistent. The Order was quashed.
[2009] EWHC 1425 (Admin)
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 22B92), National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, National Park Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England) Regulations 2007, Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Environment Act 1995, Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
England and Wales
CitedLPC Group Plc, Regina (on the Application Of) v Leicester City Council Admn 18-Oct-2002
Challenge to parking scheme.
Held: As to section 122 of the 1984 Act, if the Defendant has not had proper regard to the matters set out in section 122(1) and (2) it did not direct its mind to matters it was bound to consider.
Section . .
CitedUK Waste Management Ltd v West Lancashire District Council; St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council v Same QBD 5-Apr-1996
It was not a proper purpose of an experimental traffic scheme to seek to ban heavy goods vehicles. The council used traffic calming measures to seek to dissuade heavy goods vehicles using certain roads to get to a waste management site.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.347118