“If a C[ontrolled] P[arking] Z[one] were to be introduced on your road, what days do you think parking controls should operate?”
“We also ask that RRCRA and the Businesses are fully consulted on any future proposals relating to the West Dulwich Street Improvements, in accordance with theLocal Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 and the Gunning criteria, before even any temporary proposals are introduced pursuant to an experimental traffic order made under section 9 of the 1984 Act”
“It has been approved that an amended scheme to that initially consulted on will be introduced on a trial basis using an experimental traffic order. The first six months of this trial is a statutory consultation period by which members of the public may submit comments about the operation of the street improvements. It is anticipated that the trial will be introduced in Summer 2024 and you will be contacted closer to the time with more information on the scheme and how to submit your comments”
“I am instructed my client is satisfied that there are no arguable grounds for judicial review at this stage; but that in the interests of avoiding litigation, my client undertake before an ETO is made to revisit the Decision (with an open mind) in the light of: (i) Your clients’6 December 2023 letter; (ii) The guidance published by the DfT on17 March 2024 ; and (iii) Any responses that have been received to the statutory consultation. I am instructed to emphasise that the statutory consultation will be of statutory consultees only i.e. not of members of the public. Please confirm that the above undertaking satisfies your request and that your client will not bring a judicial review claim against the26 February 2024 decision”
“This report considers the responses to the consultation carried out with the statutory consultees on 30 May relating to the West Dulwich Street Improvement Experimental Traffic Order (ETO). The report also considers further pre-engagement community feedback from the Rosendale Road Central Residents Association, as well as new draft traffic management guidance for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods issued by the Department for Transport”
“The issues raised have been fully considered as part of the decision making process and it is noted that the six month ETO statutory objection period will provide an opportunity to make representations on the trial scheme”
“During the informal consultation period, thirty-six local businesses were invited to attend 1-2-1 with officers from the Transport Strategy team, Parking team, Community Street Design team and local ward Councillors. Seven businesses attended meetings, during which, their various needs were discussed, including parking, loading, staff journeys etc. Changes made as a result of these meetings include relocating the zebra crossing to provide additional parking outside the shops and relocating a loading bay to better suit the businesses. As a result of engagement with local businesses, the revised CPZ design provides a total of 17 free time limited spaces. The number of parking bays on Rosendale Road directly outside the shops doubled from 3 bays (in original proposals) to 6 bays (in revised proposals). Living Streets research shows that businesses benefit from infrastructure that supports walking, wheeling and cycling. Research shows that “Shoppers on foot can spend up to six times more than those who arrive by car”
“Lambeth Council prioritises collaboration and experimentation in the design of the borough’s streets. Lambeth has fulfilled and surpassed its legal obligation in respect to consultation and has adhered to the Gunning principles. … It is regrettable that the RRCRA does not feel that the consultation undertaken has been satisfactory. Lambeth greatly values the feedback of Residents Associations, community groups and individuals. Feedback received during these informal consultation periods has been integral to developing current design proposals”
“Do you have any uncertainty about the impact of your proposal? No, but a minority of people who completed the survey were not in support of some part of this scheme, particularly the modal filter locations”
“(1) The traffic authority for a road in Greater London may make an order under this section for controlling or regulating vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians). Provision may, in particular, be made— (a) for any of the purposes, or with respect to any of the matters, mentioned in Schedule 1 to this Act, and (b) for any other purpose which is a purpose mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 1(1) of this Act. … (3) Any order under this section may be made so as to apply— (a) to the whole area of a local authority, or to particular parts of that area, or to particular places or streets or parts of streets in that area; (b) throughout the day, or during particular periods; (c) on special occasions only, or at special times only; (d) to traffic of any class; (e) subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order or determined in a manner provided for by it”
“(1) It is the duty of a local traffic authority or a strategic highways company (“the network management authority”) to manage their road network with a view to achieving, so far as may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and objectives, the following objectives— (a) securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority's road network; and (b) facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority. (2) The action which the authority may take in performing that duty includes, in particular, any action which they consider will contribute to securing— (a) the more efficient use of their road network; or (b) the avoidance, elimination or reduction of road congestion or other disruption to the movement of traffic on their road network or a road network for which another authority is the traffic authority; and may involve the exercise of any power to regulate or co-ordinate the uses made of any road (or part of a road) in the road network (whether or not the power was conferred on them in their capacity as a traffic authority)”
“An order making authority shall, before making an order in a case specified in column (2) of an item in the table below, consult the persons specified in column (3) of the item.”
“In R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Gunning(1985) 84 LGR 168 Hodgson J quashed Brent's decision to close two schools on the ground that the manner of its prior consultation, particularly with the parents, had been unlawful. He said, at p 189: “Mr Sedley submits that these basic requirements are essential if the consultation process is to have a sensible content. First, that consultation must be at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage. Second, that the proposer must give sufficient reasons for any proposal to permit of intelligent consideration and response. Third … that adequate time must be given for consideration and response and, finally, fourth, that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any statutory proposals”
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved”
“125. The law governing the admissibility of “ex post facto” evidence in proceedings for judicial review is already mature. There is an ample body of authority to indicate the correct approach. Without seeking to be exhaustive, we can identify these seven points in the light of the relevant cases: (1) The court will always be cautious in exercising its discretion to admit evidence that has come into existence after the decision under review was made, as a means of elucidating, correcting or adding to the contemporaneous reasons for it (see the judgment of Hutchinson LJ, with whom Nourse and Thorpe LJJ agreed, in R. v Westminster City Council Ex p. Ermakov [1996] 2 All E.R. 302, at [315] and [316]). The basis for this principle is obvious. Documents or correspondence or other explanatory evidence generated after the event cannot have played any part in the making of the challenged decision (see the judgment of Coulson LJ, with whom Lewison and David Richards LJJ agreed, in Kenyon v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government[2020] EWCA Civ 302 at [27]–[30]). The same may be said of the professional views of officers who were not involved in advising the decision-making body when it took its decision, or of those who were, but seek later to add to the advice they actually gave. The court must avoid being influenced by evidence that has emerged after the event, possibly when proceedings have been foreshadowed or issued. So the need for caution is plain. … (3) Evidence directly in conflict with the contemporaneous record of the decision-making will not generally be admitted (see the judgment of Jackson LJ, with whom Rimer and Lewison LJJ agreed, in R. (Lanner Parish Council) v Cornwall Council[2013] EWCA Civ 1290 at [64]). But in the absence of such contradiction, there is no reason in principle to prevent “ex post facto” evidence being admitted if its function would be “elucidation not fundamental alteration, confirmation not contradiction” (see the judgment of Hutchinson LJ in Ermakov, at 315h–j). That is the touchstone. As Elias J, as he then was, said in R. (Hereford Waste Watchers Ltd) v Herefordshire Council [2005] Env. L.R. 29, at [46] , it is “proper to allow further explanation in an appropriate case”, if the decision-maker’s reasoning lacks the “clarity or detail which is desirable”. … (6) When the admissibility of evidence is in dispute in a claim for judicial review, the court’s approach should be realistic, and not overly exacting. Rarely will it be necessary for a judge to carry out a minute review of every paragraph and sentence of a witness statement, paring the statement down to an admissible minimum and formally excluding the rest, or admitting evidence for some grounds of the claim and ruling it out for others. The court should not be drawn too readily into an exercise of that kind. It finds no support in the case law. Excising passages of text from an otherwise admissible witness statement may be a somewhat artificial exercise to perform, and it may serve no useful purpose. It may make no difference to the judge’s consideration of the issues in the claim. Or it may risk the loss of valuable context or clarification”
“Finally, if it is to be assumed that a public authority has freely decided to consult on the sort of decision to which the Gunning criteria are capable of applying, I also find it difficult to see, whether the test is fairness, or rationality, why the Gunning criteria, or an equivalent, should not apply to that exercise”
“(c) Such other organisations (if any) representing persons likely to be affected by any provision in the order as the order making authority thinks it appropriate to consult”
“… we do believe that the Regulations give the Council a wide discretion as to who it does in fact consult and so we reiterate the request in the 6 December letter that the [RRCRA] be included as a consultee within the statutory consultation …”
“Especially with the benefit of hindsight, it may well be possible to identify how a consultation process might have been improved; but, even if it was less than ideal, it will become unlawful only if what has occurred makes it unfair as a matter of law. That is a substantial hurdle”
“If an affected person sends written representations to … an authorised person with a reasoned case …, on ordinary public law principles, the authorised person will have to consider those representations when considering the exercise of his discretion …”
“Last year, the Department for Transport commissioned a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) – this is the outcome. The research shows that, while they can work, in the right place, and, crucially, where they are supported, too often local people don’t know enough about them and haven’t been able to have a say. Increasingly and frustratingly, we see larger and larger low traffic schemes being proposed by some councils despite concerted opposition by local residents and by local businesses, and in some cases being removed again. This guidance makes it clear that should not happen”
“There is also a requirement in the regulations to consult other organisations representing people likely to be affected by the provisions of the order, as the local authority sees fit. There is no fixed list, but this should include road user groups, local accessibility groups and groups representing local businesses and services, and taxi and private hire operators”
“Where members of an authority take a decision, it is a reasonable inference, in the absence of contrary evidence, that they accepted the reasoning in any officer's report to them, at all events where they follow the officer's recommendation”