§ Lord Denningasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, under Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, a "representation or objection" is "duly made" if it is made on the ground that the way is unsuitable for vehicular traffic of a particular (or any) kind or that its use by such traffic would interfere with the amenities of the area: and whether it is then relevant and admissible for "consideration" at a "local inquiry" under paragraph 7 of that schedule; together with the desirability of a road traffic order under Section 54(7) of that Act.
§ Lord StrathclydeRecent High Court judgments (Mayhew v. Secretary of State for the Environment and R. v. Hampshire County Council ex parte Lasham Parish Meeting 1 July 1992) have confirmed that, while an objection to a modification order or a reclassification order may be regarded as duly made if such objection is made within the time and in the manner specified in the notice of the making of the order, amenity and suitability are not considerations which can be taken into account in determining such orders under the procedure set out under Schedule 15 to the Act, since such orders are exclusively concerned with the ascertainment of rights of way. The question of whether a traffic regulation order is subsequently necessary to regulate or prohibit traffic is a matter for the highway authority to determine in the exercise of separate statutory powers.