Twenty experimental traffic orders intended to give effect to a “mini-Holland” pro-cycling scheme in Walthamstow have survived a High Court attack from local residents and businesses.
Holgate J rejected claims that the London Borough of Waltham Forest had conducted a “sham” consultation ahead of making the experimental traffic orders (ETOs) this summer.
The authority’s £27m mini-Holland scheme aims to reduce “rat-running” on residential streets in the Walthamstow Village area, and lower traffic volumes to encourage walking and cycling instead.
But campaign group E17Streets4All objected to the ETOs, which they say will increase traffic congestion on main roads and lower air quality in those areas. Businesses on affected roads also complained about reduced access for customers.
However, the judge ruled that there was no merit whatsoever in the group’s criticisms of the consultation carried out.
He said: “The main concern related to road closures and their effect on access to premises and congestion and pollution outside the village. It is plain that the parties involved were fully able to make their objections and concerns on these matters known to the council.”
He added that the issues raised were given careful consideration, and some aspects of the scheme had modified as a result of suggestions from the public.
Lawyers representing the council said that, save for one 85m stretch of a local shopping street, Orford Road, none of the ETOs involve “road closures”, rather they introduce a number of “point road closures”, where traffic other than cycles and pedestrians is prevented by some physical barrier from proceeding directly from one stretch of road to the next, in order to prevent through “rat run” traffic.
Williams v London Borough of Waltham Forest Administrative (Holgate J) 6 November 2015
