A&E Baines Lose Legal Challenge to Harrogate Station Gateway

A&E Baines have lost their legal challenge to Harrogate Station Gateway Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs).

The case was heard by Mr Ockleton, sitting as a High Court Judge.

Baines (referred to in the judgment as ‘the applicant’) challenged the legality of four TROs made by North Yorkshire Council (NYC) on 10th January 2025.

The TROs were made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Schedule 9 of the Act says that anyone can question the validity of a TRO within six weeks of it being made.

Detailed procedural requirements for the making of TROs are set out in the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

The judge said that the decision to implement the Station Gateway scheme was taken by the council Executive on 28th November 2023, and that decision had not been challenged. Also, the time limit for a judicial review of it had passed.

The judge noted that this is a public law case but not an application for judicial review. There are protections against costs orders in judicial review cases, but they do not apply here.

The judge rejected the five grounds of challenge as follows:

1. The applicant said that the revised/diluted scheme had never been consulted on and should have been subject to consultation. That was in effect a challenge to the November 2023 decision to proceed with the scheme, but the challenge before the court only concerned the TROs not the scheme as a whole.
2. The applicant claimed that the four TROs made were not all the TROs needed for the scheme. The judge found that the council had no intention of delivering only part of the scheme, but was preparing for its implementation bit by bit.
3. The applicant said that the council had not treated TRO consultation responses opposing the scheme fairly. The judge found that the council was entitled to disregard responses which were not relevant to the subject-matter of the consultation (the TROs).
4. The applicant complained that background information about the scheme in the consultation document was misleading. The judge found that it was not intended to set out all the details of the scheme, and it was not legitimate for the applicant to say ‘I object to the TROs because I object to the scheme’. Also, arguments about the effect on traffic as it is now were not to the point because the purpose of the scheme is to change transport habits.
5. The applicant argued that in making the TROs the council took into account matters where there was insufficient evidence, or evidence that should have led the council not to make the TROs. This ground concerned the balancing exercise the council had to make, as set out in the officer’s report. The judge found that the balancing exercise had been carried out appropriately.

The judge commented:

‘The entire application is essentially a claim that the despite the decision to adopt it, [the scheme] should not be implemented’.

One point of interest appears in paragraph 56 of the judgment, and concerns the cycle infrastructure in the scheme.

‘There are continuing discussions about the modelling of cycle access throughout the area of the Scheme. There is no basis for saying that it is wrong to describe the Scheme as providing a safe option, it is obvious that any segregation of cyclists from some or all of other traffic is a move in that direction’.

The Applicant’s Intention to Appeal

The Stray Ferret says that Baines intend to appeal.

They want the money to be spent on free parking instead of the Station Gateway scheme. That would not be a permissible use of Transforming Cities Fund funding.

The council intends to consider and approve plans to go ahead with the scheme in October 2025.