The court documents for the failed case to stop Waltham Forest's mini-Holland scheme have been published online, with the judge ruling against any possibility of appeal saying: "The ... way in which the application is made shows the unfortunate tendency in this case for the claimant's argument to shift."
The damning court evidence, which can be found here, comes after last November’s case, where we reported how the group E17 Streets for All had an attempt to have the initiative blocked thrown out of court.
E17 Streets for All claimed that the borough had not followed the consultation process correctly, but was ordered to pay the council costs of £12,000.
Solicitor Sarah Williams, its representative, was given 28 days to pay the costs.
In a statement sent to road.cc at the time, Councillor Clyde Loakes, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Environment at Waltham Forest Council, said: “Our Mini-Holland programme is designed to improve the borough for everyone and we are pleased that the High Court has dismissed the arguments put forward.
"The Council appreciates that people have concerns and hope that this provides another opportunity for us to reassure everyone in the borough that we take seriously the need to meet all the appropriate legal requirements.
"We will continue to work with the community to develop the programme, which encourages walking and cycling, as we roll it out across the borough,” he added.
The local council, which is Labour-run, was taken to the High Court over concerns that there had not been sufficient public consultation on the plans to make the streets safer for cyclists.
The project has long been contentious, with the issue being discussed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme in 2014.
One local woman told the programme: “It changes the feel of this street particularly so there would normally be cars parked here but now there’s just seats.
"It’s so much more open and now you can take in your surroundings a bit more rather than being a bit stressed by all the cars. Just look at this dad with his kid on the back of his bike – two kids on the back of his bike in fact!”
But a man living on another road in the area said: “They’re just creating a new rat run in my street here. My quiet residential road is now effectively a main road.
"It’s a great idea on theory but there needs to be more consultation with residents,” he added.
The campaign's website, e17streets4all.co.uk, is run by Don Mapp, a gardener in Walthamstow. He has previously campaigned against the council’s controlled parking zone, believing the public highway in front of his house to be his part of the road.
Justice Holgate said some of the objections raised by E17Streets4all were “absurd."
He added that: “In my judgment, there was nothing particularly complicated, or indeed complicated at all, about these issues. Therefore, the Council is not to be criticised in the way suggested. I see no realistic prospect of success in relation to that matter either.”
Add new comment
13 comments
Sounds like he needs filtering on his street. If there is rat running on his street now, it would have been on another street before. You have to block up potential rat runs to stop the problem moving.
This is good news.
Statutory reviews are an immportant tool in challenging council decision where they have not followed the correct process, but missusing them like E17 Streets for All did in this case undermines them. Glad they got the £12k costs awarded against them, now I think E17 Streets for All might find themselves short of members who want to pay up.
I wish they just repair all the holes down Portsmouth Road before even thinking about new designs
I believe the scales-of-justice statue is on top of the Old Bailey, which only deals with criminal cases, so the photo is not apposite.
I believe that this picture is repeatedly used to illustrate reports concerning justice and judicial decisions so is indeed apposite.
A picture of the Old Bailey would not work but the scales of justice as a literal visual representation of justice and more broadly the legal system seems entirely appropriate.
£12k, ouch!
You know, it's a wonderful thing - a good news story beneath that scales-of-justice stock photo.
If the judge thought the Waltham Forest concerns were absurd, he'd love the Kingston bunch with their unexploded bombs and terrorist attacks.
I expect the LTDA case against the CSH will be thrown out in a similar fashion shortly.
What gets me is the amount of money that is being spent on all these dubious campaigns. How much have the LDTA, this lot, and the Kingston lot spent between them now?
Maybe cycle infrastructure projects are a good way to soak up the excess cash of rich people with political views they want to propagate? By keeping them busy with this, it may well be stopping them from funding something with greater chance of success and more damaging (like, say, starting a war, building a secret moon base, or toppling a third-world government or something - I'm presuming they are basically Bond Villains, just ones with a peculiarly obsessive hatred of bicycles).
A more intriguing question, is whether it is the LTDA who are paying the entire bill...
Hurrah!
Frivolous vexatious litigation can bite you on the arse, E 17!
It's that e17 and car thing again, isn't it?
The subtle ones are the best...
"But a man living on another road in the area said: “They’re just creating a new rat run in my street here. My quiet residential road is now effectively a main road. " So streets for all but only if you're a motorist. Time to introduce effective speed bumps top deter the rat runners