Emma Rose (on behalf of Friends of Mill Road Bridge 2) v Cambridgeshire County Council

Hearing date: 10 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 8 July 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Claimant challenges the validity of the City of Cambridge (Mill Road) (Bus Gate) Order 2024, which is a traffic regulation order (“TRO”) prohibiting private vehicle access across Mill Road Bridge, Cambridge. The TRO was made by the Defendant (“the Council”), on 11 October 2024, under sections 1(1) to 3 and Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“RTRA 1984”). The challenge is made pursuant to paragraph 35 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984.

The Claimant brings this claim as an individual and in her capacity as Chair of the Friends of Mill Road Bridge 2, an unincorporated association of local residents.

The Claimant challenges the TRO on the following grounds:

i) Ground 1: If the Council made the TRO for the reasons set out in the Statement of Reasons (“SoR”), its decision to make the TRO was unreasonable, being based upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained;

ii) Ground 2: If the Council made the TRO knowing that the purported reasons in the SoR were merely aspirational or possible outcomes, the consultation on the proposed TRO was unfair;

iii) Ground 3: In failing to take into account the Petition started by the Mill Road Traders Association, when deciding to make the TRO, the Council failed to take into account a mandatory material consideration;

iv) Ground 4: The Council failed to provide legally adequate reasons for its decision to make the TRO.

The Claimant submits that as a result of these legal errors, the TRO should be quashed.

Facts

Mill Road is a major route from the east into the city of Cambridge. It connects two major A roads: East Road (A603) and the Inner Ring Road (A1134). There are a number of shops and businesses on Mill Road as well as residential dwellings. Mill Road Bridge, a railway bridge, is located in the central section of the road. The area surrounding Mill Road is mainly residential.

The Claimant is a resident of Coleridge Road where she lives with her 13 year old daughter who has been diagnosed with asthma. Coleridge Road is an entirely residential street that intersects with Mill Road to the east of Mill Road Bridge.

From 1 July 2019, Mill Road Bridge was closed to vehicular traffic for 8 weeks during railway works. The Council installed traffic count sensors in and around the area to monitor road usage before and after the works. The ‘Sensor Trials Final Report’ found that during the closure traffic in the surrounding areas increased proportionately, and after the re-opening traffic returned to its pre-closure levels.

A bus gate was first installed on Mill Road Bridge in June 2020. It was implemented under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (“ETRO”) and restricted vehicular traffic over the bridge, except buses and emergency vehicles. On 27 July 2021, the Council's Highways and Transport Committee (“the Committee”) resolved to remove the bus gate restriction but to undertake a full review and public consultation on the options and use of Mill Road.

In Spring 2022, the Greater Cambridge Partnership (“GCP”) undertook a non-statutory consultation on how proposals for Mill Road would work with the City Access strategy. The consultation included focus group meetings with stake holders and a public survey between 7 February 2022 and 21 March 2022 (“the GCP consultation”). A report on the GCP consultation was presented to the Committee at its meeting on 12 July 2022. The Committee approved the recommendations to consult on a TRO to reinstate a modal filter on Mill Road, and to consult on exemptions to the TRO, including disabled people and taxis.

In March 2023, the Committee voted to approve the Cambridge (Mill Road) (Bus Gate) Order 2023 (“the 2023 TRO”). The 2023 TRO was the subject of a legal challenge that commenced in July 2023. On 7 May 2024, James Strachan KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) allowed in part the Council's application to strike out the claim for summary judgment but allowed the claim to proceed on other grounds. Following this decision, the Council consented to judgment and the High Court quashed the 2023 TRO by a consent order dated 6 August 2024.

On 9 August 2024, the Defendant publicised a new proposed TRO on Mill Road Bridge. The TRO proposed to close Mill Road Bridge to all vehicles except local buses, bicycles, taxis and “authorised vehicles” as defined in the TRO. The notice period ran from 9 August 2024 to 13 September 2024.

The Council published a SoR in accordance with its obligation under Schedule 2(2)(d) of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (“the 1996 Regulations”), outlining the statutory purposes for which the Council proposed to make the TRO and the reasons for making the TRO.

On 15 August 2024, the Mill Road Traders' Association started a petition against the new TRO. The petition by the Mill Road Traders' Association explained the basis on which they objected to the implementation of the TRO. The petition received 1,652 signatures and closed on 13 September 2024.

Part 4.1 of the Council's constitution (as at 22 October 2024) contained a section on the Council's “Petition Scheme”. Petitions relating to TROs are excluded from the Petition Scheme. Instead, Part 4.1 states that such petitions “are considered by the Assistant Director: Highways in consultation with the local members”. This constitutional requirement was effective at the time of the Committee Meeting on 4 October 2024.

The Claimant signed the Mill Road Traders' Association petition and objected to the TRO.

During the consultation period, the Claimant wrote to the Policy and Regulation Team, expressing her concerns about the impacts on Coleridge Road and requesting information that the closure would have on air quality in surrounding streets. The Claimant also wrote to her ward councillor, Cllr Shailer, the vice-chair of the Committee, requesting data on the likely impacts on Coleridge Road.

The Executive Director of Place and Sustainability drafted a report to the Committee (“the OR”), recommending the approval of the proposed TRO on Mill Road Bridge.

Vinery Road (referred to in the OR) is a residential road perpendicular to Mill Road to the east. It formerly provided a through route for vehicles between Mill Road and Coldhams Lane. Following the introduction of a modal filter towards the north-eastern end of Vinery Road – at the point at which Vinery Road meets Vinery Way and turns to the north-west – access to Coldhams Lane via Vinery Road is now restricted to pedestrians and cycles only.

The OR also refers to the Local Cycling and Walking Investment Plan (“LCWIP”) (adopted in October 2022), which sits within the Council's Active Travel Strategy (March 2023).

The OR referred to two petitions received in respect of the proposed TRO, at OR/3.15.

On 4 October 2024, the Committee voted to approve a TRO on Mill Road Bridge and the TRO was made on 11 October 2024.

On 24 October 2024, the Council emailed the objectors to the TRO, informing them that the reasons for having made the TRO were set out in the SoR at Appendix 2 of the Committee Report and in the Committee Report.

The SoR was made in identical terms to the draft SoR published during the consultation period.

On 1 December 2024, the TRO came into operation on Mill Road Bridge. It restricts vehicular traffic over the railway bridge, with exemptions for local buses, cyclists, pedestrians, taxis and authorised vehicles. Authorised vehicles include emergency services and vehicles used by disabled persons and/or their carers.

On 12 March 2025, the Council's officers published a brief response to the Mill Road Traders' Association petition on its website and petitioners were advised of this by email.

Legal framework

Statutory scheme

Section 1(1) RTRA 1984 provides the purposes for which a traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make a TRO. Schedule 9, Part VI, paragraph 35 permits any person who desires to question the validity of, or of any provision contained in, an order to which Part VI of Schedule 9 applies, to make an application to the High Court on the grounds that it is not within the relevant powers or that any of the relevant requirements has not been complied with in relation to the order.

Paragraph 36(1)(b) of the 1984 Act provides that on any application under Part VI of Schedule 9, the court, if satisfied that the order, or any provision of the order, is not within the relevant powers, or that the interests of the applicant have been substantially prejudiced by failure to comply with any of the relevant requirements, may quash the order or any provision of the order.

The 1996 Regulations set out the procedure for the making of TROs. Regulation 6(1) requires an order making authority to consult with specific persons, including such other organisations (if any) representing persons likely to be affected by any provision in the order as the order making authority thinks it appropriate to consult. Regulation 7 outlines the obligations with respect to publication of proposals. Regulation 7(3) requires...