The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea “irrationally” removed a cycle lane running down Kensington High Street after just six weeks of what should have been an 18-month trial, lawyers for local campaign group Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea told the High Court today.
The group is seeking a judicial review of the decision not to reinstate the lane, taken in March 2021, claiming the council made an irrational decision and failed to properly consult on the matter.
Opening her case today, barrister Jenny Wigley KC told High Court judge Mr Justice Lane that, according to data from Transport for London, the lane was a “highly important,” “strategic” and “much-needed” east-to-west route that would be used by 3,000 cyclists a day.
She said that during the Covid pandemic, when the route was trialled, government policy, funded by an Emergency Active Travel fund, was to not only reduce pressure on public transport in the short term, but to drive long-term change.
The council announced its plans to add a segregated cycle lane using flexible plastic wands in September 2020 and rolled out the first phase of the scheme by November.
According to court papers, the council said it received a petition in October 2020 signed by 3,000 people objecting, although the campaign group’s lawyers said there was no analysis of whether the signatures were from residents or visitors.
Within six weeks, the council had decided to remove the cycle lane and reconsider the plan later.
The campaign group argued that one of the reasons for putting the temporary scheme in place was to “monitor and evaluate” its effectiveness.
The decision not to reinstate it was irrational because “the best way to assess whether or not something will work in the long-term is to give it a fair try”, Wigley said in court papers.
“It was clear and unequivocal that the removal of the trial cycle lane had been premature,” she said.
She also said the consultation process carried out by the council was “conspicuously unfair” and, when it took place, consultees had “no concrete or detailed proposals to respond to”.
“They were effectively faced with a yes/no to cycle lanes, not an option to comment on the continuation of temporary cycle lanes as an evidence-gathering process.”
The council rejected the claimant’s arguments, saying they were “without merit”.
The council’s lawyer, Charles Streeten, said in written arguments that the council was under no obligation to consult and had stated that publicly. It was “a fact” that a planning officer prepared a report on the subject for the benefit of the March council meeting, he said. There was no breach of rules that could lead to “conspicuous unfairness”, he said.
As for irrationality, “it was well within the scope… of a public authority” to consider whether or not to reinstate the lanes. The argument that it acted irrationally “flushes out the claimants’ true position, which is that they do not agree with the merits of the council’s decision”, he said
“That is not, however, a proper basis for bringing a claim for judicial review.”
The case is scheduled for one day, with judgment expected at a later date.
R (on the application of Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea another) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
To send feedback, e-mail newsdesk@eg.co.uk or tweet @EGPropertyNews
