Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Blow for active travel in London as High Court judge rules Sadiq Khan’s Streetspace initiative unlawful

Judicial review initiated by taxi trade also quashes guidance to boroughs on low traffic neighbourhoods and pop-up bike lanes

In a blow for active travel in London, a High Court judge has ruled that Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Streetspace initiative, rolled out in the capital last summer, is unlawful following a judicial review initiated by two organisations representing members of the capital’s taxi trade.

Today’s decision, which Transport for London (TfL) plans to appeal, also sees Interim Guidance to Boroughs, under which many have introduced pop-up cycle lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) quashed, as well as restrictions that closed Bishopsgate in the City of London to all traffic other than buses and cyclists between 7am and 7pm on weekdays.

That doesn’t mean that LTNs and pop-up cycle lanes will be torn up tonight, with Mrs Justice Lang strongly suggesting in today’s judgment that TfL and the Mayor “substantially” revise their plans in the light of today’s decision while they appeal, and that even if they lose, more time can be granted before the quashing orders are issued.

The Streetspace programme aimed to “rapidly transform London’s streets to accommodate a ten-fold increase in cycling and a five-fold increase in walking,” but was challenged at the High Court by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and the United Trade Action Group.

They argued, among other things, that no consideration had been made of the taxi trade by TfL when it drew up the Streetspace programme or the Interim Guidance to Boroughs, as well as the closure of Bishopsgate to traffic including taxis.

The judge said that TfL and the Mayor “took advantage of the pandemic” to enforce “radical changes” to London’s streets and that they “failed to distinguish taxis from ‘general traffic’,” disregarding “the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport, reflected both in law and policy” and “the role played by taxis in facilitating accessible public transport for those with mobility impairments.”

She said that “It was both unfair and irrational to introduce such extreme measures, if it was not necessary to do so, when they impacted so adversely on certain sections of the public.”

Mrs Justice Lang said: “In my judgment, quashing orders rather than declarations are appropriate because of the nature and extent of the unlawfulness which I have identified, which affects not only taxi drivers, but also their passengers.”

 

She said that TfL and the Mayor would need to reconsider the Streetspace plan, the Interim Guidance to Boroughs and the Bishopsgate scheme, with all three needing to be “substantially amended” to reflect the judgment.    

“To reduce disruption, the defendants can turn their minds to this task now, on a provisional basis, as there will be a stay and a delay whilst they pursue their appeal,” she concluded, adding that in the event of the appeal being unsuccessful, they could apply for further time to finalise revised plans ahead of the quashing orders coming into force.

A TfL spokesperson commented: “We are disappointed with the court’s ruling and are seeking to appeal this judgment. Temporary Streetspace schemes are enabling safer essential journeys during this exceptionally challenging time and are vital to ensuring that increased car traffic does not threaten London’s recovery from coronavirus.

“We absolutely recognise the need for schemes such as our Bishopsgate corridor to work for the communities they serve and have worked hard to ensure that people across London, including those who use taxis, can continue to get to where they need to be.

“We also recognise the need for schemes to be delivered in a fair and consistent manner and have worked closely with the boroughs to create clear guidance for implementing schemes, updating this regularly to reflect what we have learnt. We are now carefully considering our next steps.” 

Steve McNamara, general secretary of the LTDA, said: “It's fantastic to see the judge rightly recognising the key role licensed taxis play in our great city. This is an extremely important judgment for London's hard working taxi drivers and the passengers who rely on them.”

London Cycloing Campaign infrastructure campaigner, Simon Munk, told road.cc: “TfL, the Mayor and boroughs should consider the needs of disabled and elderly passengers in taxis in every scheme. However, they represent a minority of trips by taxi, and we need to prioritise buses, cycling and walking, particularly during the pandemic. That means working out ways to restrict and reduce unnecessary motor traffic journeys, including in taxis, while ensuring access for those who need it.

“Streetspace schemes have enabled many Londoners to exercise and carry out essential journeys safely when our transport options have been reduced. Similar schemes supporting cycling and walking must continue, not only in response to the pandemic, but the climate emergency, air pollution crisis and to ensure disabled and elderly people have access to a range of mobility options, not just taxis.

“This challenge is the latest in a long history of the taxi industry opposing any scheme that seeks to cut car use and boost walking and cycling. We look forward to TfL’s appeal of this judgement because it is in the best interests of Londoners, including the elderly and disabled, to reduce motor traffic across the capital,” he added.

All 32 boroughs plus the City of London received Streetspace funding from TfL to fund emergency active travel schemes, with a total of £33 million provided in six tranches and helping to finance 36 low traffic neighbourhoods, 111 school streets, 11 strategic cycle routes and six town centre schemes. 

> Final round of London Streetspace funding announced

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

22 comments

Avatar
rjfrussell | 3 years ago
1 like

"Because of their legal status as public transport, taxis and their drivers are subject to a different legislative scheme from private hire vehicles, which are not a form of public transport, and not authorised to ply for hire."

Avatar
brooksby replied to rjfrussell | 3 years ago
0 likes

But buses don't ply for hire, either, nor trains.

Avatar
rjfrussell | 3 years ago
1 like

The full judgment is here, if you wish to read it.  It is very clear, but quite long.

 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/72.html

As will be clear if you read it, this is not the court making policy decisions, it is principally aimed at the decision making process, assessing whether everything that should have been considered had been considered and that the reasoning process was valid.

The judgment makes clear that different considerations apply to Hackney Carriages (black cabs)  which as a matter of law have the status of a form of public transport, and mini-cabs which are just part of general traffic.  In the judgmnet the term "taxi" only refers to black cabs, not mini-cabs.

The main ground of appeal was the failure to differentiate between taxis in this sense and traffic generally when the decisions were reached.   

Avatar
David9694 replied to rjfrussell | 3 years ago
0 likes

so in theory the authority can re-take the flawed decision, correcting where they are deemed to have erred, right?

In practice the passage of time, and general hoo-hah that arises from a case like this may make that uncertain.

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
1 like

I really don't understand in what way a London taxi counts as "public transport"... 

Avatar
stonojnr replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

because the laws surrounding hackney carriages licensing and regulation as they apply in London, says they are, and TfL do not challege on that point.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to stonojnr | 3 years ago
1 like

stonojnr wrote:

because the laws surrounding hackney carriages licensing and regulation as they apply in London, says they are, and TfL do not challege on that point.

Does it? Is there a leal definition of what constitutes public transport against private vehicle?

Not disputing what you say, just fascinated with the mechanics of it. 

Would any categorisation criteria mean that rick shaws are also public transport? What about chaufer driven vehicles? or hire cars?

 What is the practical distinction that allows taxies to be seen as different to a chauffer driven hire car?

Avatar
stonojnr replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
0 likes

There is an accepted definition in law,and resulting policy built from that law which treats and recognises Hackney carriages as public transport, and not a form of general private hire traffic (rickshaws etc) that carries passengers around for fares.

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to stonojnr | 3 years ago
0 likes

stonojnr wrote:

There is an accepted definition in law,and resulting policy built from that law which treats and recognises Hackney carriages as public transport, and not a form of general private hire traffic (rickshaws etc) that carries passengers around for fares.

Thanks, Is that a technical categorisation, or is it just "we've decided that taxies qualify a PT"

Avatar
brooksby replied to stonojnr | 3 years ago
0 likes

stonojnr wrote:

because the laws surrounding hackney carriages licensing and regulation as they apply in London, says they are, and TfL do not challege on that point.

Then I would venture that the laws surrounding hackney carriages licensing and regulation as they apply in London are not fit for purpose! surprise

Avatar
David9694 replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
0 likes

I guess in the very limited sense that they offer a service to the public? 

Avatar
Richard D | 3 years ago
13 likes

Lots of emphasis on the needs of the elderly and the disabled, and yet the action wasn't brought by any group that represents the elderly or the disabled!

It would be wrong of me to dismiss the cabbies' views out of hand, but given that I procescuted several cab drivers for their actions towards disabled passengers forgive me if I take this part of their argument with Avery large pinch of salt.

 

 

Avatar
Brauchsel replied to Richard D | 3 years ago
3 likes

Richard D wrote:

It would be wrong of me to dismiss the cabbies' views out of hand

Oh go on, it's the least they deserve. 

Avatar
philhubbard replied to Brauchsel | 3 years ago
3 likes

What I really want to know is why people would be using 25,000 cabs in London during a national lockdown? Surely in London if you can't walk there it is too far away to be an essential journey?

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to philhubbard | 3 years ago
1 like

philhubbard wrote:

What I really want to know is why people would be using 25,000 cabs in London during a national lockdown? 

People don't , only reptilian aliens from Alpha Draconis. Jesus, that means the cabbies are in on it! it all makes sense now....

Avatar
David9694 | 3 years ago
2 likes

depressing stuff, as is all the crowing by cabbies on Twitter today.  This judgment hinges on the the quality and rigour of the equalities assessment, or rather what the judge regards as a material defect in the procedure to arrive at the policy. The remedy is to strike out the policy - put the parties back to where they should be.
 

I don't disagree with the argument (that seems to have sparked this) about taxis on Broadgate. The standard "we will consider the judgement" from TFL -  I hope for all our sakes that they bounce back. 

Avatar
esnifador | 3 years ago
8 likes

What a short-sighted judgement. The whole point of such measures is to reduce reliance on cars in general, which includes taxis, which really are an incredibly inefficient form of public transport. Utterly cretinous decision.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa | 3 years ago
7 likes

The judgment appears to have been made on this basis of opinion rather than as a matter of law. With luck, the judges on appeal won't have the same pro-taxi, anti-active travel bias as this first instance judge.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 3 years ago
15 likes

On the face of it, an astonishing judgement. 

If there are so many disabled passengers affected by these schemes, how come none of the organisations representing them joined this action, and was any evidence produced to establish the fact that they were seriously inconvenienced, or did they just rely on the testimony of taxi drivers, who are not exactly independent witnesses.

“failed to distinguish taxis from ‘general traffic’,” disregarding “the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport, reflected both in law and policy”  Why should taxis be distinguished from general traffic and is there anything in law to enforce that?

Extraordinary and I hope the appeal will succeed.

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
12 likes

Quote:

This is an extremely important judgment for London's hard working taxi drivers and the passengers who rely on them.”

I do sometimes wonder whether these people even believe the things they say...

Avatar
EddyBerckx replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
16 likes

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

This is an extremely important judgment for London's hard working taxi drivers and the passengers who rely on them.”

I do sometimes wonder whether these people even believe the things they say...

 

They don't care. How 25k cabbies who serve a tiny proportion of Londoners in a city of 8 million have so much power I don't know.

 

Avatar
nniff replied to EddyBerckx | 3 years ago
5 likes

[/quote]

They don't care. How 25k cabbies who serve a tiny proportion of Londoners in a city of 8 million have so much power I don't know.

 

[/quote]

It is certainly the case that taxis take up a disproportionate amount of TfL's time condsidering the overall contribution to transport that they make. 

Perhaps one should balance the contribution they make to facilitating access to 'public transport' to the contibution they make to ****ing up regular transport. 

Taxis are hackney carriages, licenced to pick up passengers at the road-side.  Private Hire vehicles may only pick up at pre-arranged locations.  Note that the action was brought by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association and UTAG (who view Private Hire vehicles as vermin). Private Hire vehicles of course have the word 'private' in their title which is a touch awkward if you're pitching yourselves as 'public', so the service that the latter provide to the public doesn't count.

Latest Comments