The byways surrounding Stonehenge have been closed to the public for over nine months under Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTROs). Unconfirmed reports indicate that the continued closure stems primarily from works on a short stretch of one byway affected by possible asbestos containing material contamination, while repairs to the remainder of the byway have been completed. Other associated byways appear to have seen no maintenance or repair during this period. This extended restriction has raised significant concerns about access, particularly for disabled individuals who rely on these paths for equitable enjoyment of the site.
I have been asked by several people for my views and so this is my exploration of the legal framework governing such closures, and considers whether current practice aligns with principles of proportionality and human rights protections under UK law. Please note that this is an informal thought piece and not a source of legal advice. I'm not a lawyer.
The Legal Basis for Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders
TTROs are authorised under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), enabling highway authorities like Wiltshire Council to impose temporary restrictions on traffic to facilitate works, mitigate dangers, or prevent road damage. However, these orders are inherently short-term, with section 15 capping durations at six months for footpaths, bridleways, and similar rights of way. Extensions beyond this require exceptional justification and approval from the Secretary of State for Transport. The legislation emphasises that such measures must be "temporary" and aligned with the actual necessity, ensuring they do not become de facto permanent without proper scrutiny.
Highway authorities must also adhere to broader duties under section 122 of the RTRA 1984, balancing the need for safe and convenient traffic movement against other considerations, such as environmental protection and public amenities. Failures in this balancing act can render orders unlawful, as seen in various judicial reviews.
The Principle of Proportionality in Public Law
Proportionality is a cornerstone of UK administrative law, ensuring that public authorities exercise their powers in a manner that is reasonable and not excessive. The classic test for unreasonableness stems from Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223, where the Court of Appeal held that a decision is irrational if it is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it."
Since the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) via the Human Rights Act 1998, proportionality has taken on a more structured form, especially where rights are engaged. The Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39 articulated a four-stage test:
(1) whether the objective is sufficiently important;
(2) whether the measure is rationally connected to that objective;
(3) whether a less intrusive measure could achieve the same end;
(4) whether a fair balance is struck between individual rights and the public interest.
In the context of road closures, this requires authorities to demonstrate that blanket restrictions are necessary and that alternatives, such as partial reopenings, have been considered.
Human Rights and Equality Considerations
The Stonehenge byway closures potentially infringe ECHR rights, including Article 8 (respect for private and family life, which encompasses access to cultural and recreational spaces) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (peaceful enjoyment of possessions, including public access rights). For disabled users, the impact is amplified, as these byways provide essential accessibility. This engages the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, mandating authorities to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity for those with protected characteristics.
Courts have increasingly scrutinised traffic orders through this lens, requiring ongoing monitoring to ensure disproportionate effects on vulnerable groups are mitigated.
Key Precedents Illustrating These Principles
Several cases highlight how proportionality and human rights apply to traffic regulation orders, offering direct parallels to the Stonehenge situation.
In Tchenguiz v Westminster City Council [2022] EWHC 469 (Admin), the High Court quashed traffic restrictions near the Royal Albert Hall that limited vehicle access to the claimant's property from noon to midnight daily. The court found the measures disproportionate under Article 8 ECHR, applying the Bank Mellat test and noting that less intrusive options, such as vetted access, were available. The judge emphasised that restrictions must be narrowly tailored to the security aim, without unnecessary daily burdens.
Similarly, R (Sofia Sheakh) v London Borough of Lambeth [2021] EWHC 1745 (Admin) involved a challenge to experimental traffic orders (ETOs) creating Low Traffic Neighbourhoods during the COVID-19 pandemic. While upheld, the judgment stressed the need for proportionality in balancing scheme objectives against impacts on disabled residents, under both section 122 duties and the equality duty. The court highlighted the importance of continuous review to avoid disproportionate harm.
The Court of Appeal in Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1275 upheld a permanent TRO banning motor vehicles from rural lanes but clarified that authorities must explicitly consider section 122 factors. Failures in this process can lead to orders being quashed, reinforcing that restrictions must be reasonable and evidence-based.
More recently, in Croft v Devon County Council (15 April 2025, unreported), the High Court quashed a TRO prohibiting vehicles on a lane segment due to misleading safety assessments. Although not focused on duration, the case underscores that orders must rest on accurate evaluations of necessity, implying that unjustified prolongations are unlawful.
Applying the Law to the Stonehenge Byways
In the Stonehenge case, the continued complete closure for limited asbestos works on a short stretch appears disproportionate. The legitimate aim of safety is clear, but maintaining a full network shutdown when most sections are complete—and others untouched—fails the Bank Mellat test. Alternatives like phased reopenings should be prioritised to minimise interference with public rights. The lack of visible progress on other byways suggests the order may be irrational under Wednesbury, potentially serving as a stopgap rather than a targeted measure.
For disabled individuals, the equality duty demands specific mitigations, such as alternative provisions, which seem absent. This mirrors concerns in Sheakh v Lambeth, where impacts on protected groups were central to the proportionality assessment.
Conclusion
The extended TTRO on Stonehenge's byways exemplifies the tension between necessary works and public access rights. Drawing on precedents like Tchenguiz, Sheakh, Trail Riders Fellowship, and Croft, alongside foundational tests from Wednesbury and Bank Mellat, there are strong grounds to argue that the closure is unlawful. While significant grounds exist for questioning the current approach using legal and equality principles, the situation is nuanced and ongoing, further clarity may emerge as reviews and consultations progress. Wiltshire Council should continue to review, justify, and, where appropriate, amend orders, prioritising transparency, targeted reopenings, and measurable equality impacts. Failure to do so could invite judicial review, underscoring the need for authorities to wield temporary powers with restraint and accountability. As of 06 September 2025, the situation remains unresolved, highlighting broader issues in managing heritage sites amid infrastructure challenges.
Reference List of Legal Cases
- Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223. Available at: https://www.uniset.ca/other/cs2/19481KB223.htm.
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2011-0040.html.
- Tchenguiz v Westminster City Council [2022] EWHC 469 (Admin). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/62322fecb50db9fc0c9260f1.
- R (Sofia Sheakh) v London Borough of Lambeth [2021] EWHC 1745 (Admin). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/60e2a2192c94e01fd73c1377.
- Trail Riders Fellowship v Hampshire County Council [2019] EWCA Civ 1275. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5d384d032c94e06cadab63af.
- Croft v Devon County Council (15 April 2025, unreported). Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/67fea5d40696d8232c534bb3
