Transport for London (TfL) has today won a Court of Appeal decision against a ruling from the High Court earlier this year that initiatives aimed at promoting active travel and making roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians were unlawful.
In January, High Court judge Mrs Justice Lang ruled that TfL’s Streetspace programme, designed to promote active travel after the coronavirus pandemic hit and aimed at given more space to cyclists and pedestrians, was unlawful.
The action was originally brought by two organisations linked to members of the licensed cab trade, the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association and the United Trade Action Group, which argued that the Streetspace programme, TfL guidance to boroughs on low traffic neighbourhoods, and the closure of Bishopsgate in the City of London were all unlawful.
The judge in the initial case said that the programme was “seriously flawed” and went “beyond what was reasonably required to meet the temporary challenges created by the pandemic.”
But she also invited TfL to “substantially” revise its plans ahead of any appeal, and said that even if that appeal were lost, more time could be granted before the quashing orders are issued.
TfL said that today’s judgment, together with the results of last month’s Mayoral election where Labour’s Sadiq Khan secured a second term despite Conservative candidate Shaun Bailey, among others, making opposition to policies aimed at reducing motor traffic and promoting active travel a key part of its campaigns, was a vindication of its policies.
> London voters back LTNs and cycle lanes, analysis of mayoral election results reveals
Khan said that today’s decision, combined with the election result, “forms a double mandate allowing us to continue with our bold measures.
“Our changes to Bishopsgate make it safer for people walking and cycling. This central London scheme is the centrepiece of the work we have done across the capital during my first term
“Our world-leading Streetspace schemes are helping protect the health of Londoners, and this decision reinforces my determination to make it safer and easier for Londoners to walk and cycle, and to help ensure a green and sustainable recovery from the pandemic,” he added.
NEW: This decision from the Court of Appeal is a vindication of our policies. Our world-leading Streetspace schemes help protect the health of Londoners, and this decision reinforces my determination to make it safer & easier for Londoners to walk & cycle.https://t.co/Sn2hbbqgU6 pic.twitter.com/rMHpozW6SW
— Sadiq Khan (@SadiqKhan) June 16, 2021
7 thoughts on “Transport for London wins appeal over Streetspace active travel programme”
Surely the headline should be
Surely the headline should be “Sanity prevails at last”?
A great, sensible, decision for London and the rest of the country, as hopefully, this will deter any further challenges to such schemes.
eburtthebike wrote:
Awww, that’s so sweet that you think that…
brooksby wrote:
That’s me; sweet.
reference to Simon Still
reference to Simon Still (resigned from London Cycling Campaign in February) was the best shock-jock Christo could do on Twitter so far.
Sad to see some responses from disability rights people who have been conned by those who brought the original case. I hope TfL and LCC, etc will be able to reach out to them and show that we care about their issues and importantly, we always have.
David9694 wrote:
Yes, the propaganda from UTAG and the LTDA was a disgrace; the original judgement simply said that TfL had failed properly to consider the impact on the disabled of the Bishopsgate closure, it didn’t actually rule that it had a negative impact, and they portrayed this as being a direct ruling that the policy discriminated against the disabled.
Apparently we are going to
Apparently we are going to have to wait for a while for the Appeal Judges to write up their reasoning. I’m looking forward to any “dings” against the original judge or the taxi drivers.
But this is why its important
But this is why its important not to rush to claim the decision presents any mandate to do anything if we dont understand the detail why the original judgement has been overturned, or the reasoning these judges have applied.
The appeal court may have simply decided the original judgement was too widely encompassing on streetspace and didnt give enough consideration to the emergency measures the pandemic required on Bishopsgate specifically, so accepted this is a one off special case,but is not therefore policy defining.