The High Court of Justice's Planning Court has ruled that TfL and the Mayor of London acted unlawfully on four of six claims brought against them by the United Trade Action Group (UTAG) and the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association (LTDA). The claims were that the Streetspace programme and an associated scheme on A10 Bishopsgate has failed to consider the role of taxis. 

The Streetspace programme is a set of guidelines for London boroughs by TfL that sets out to create streets that make it easier and safer for people to travel during the pandemic and simultaneously brings benefits to air quality, health and helps tackle the climate emergency. The schemes under this programme are temporary, however TfL and boroughs will be consulting with people, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders as to whether some of the schemes should be made permanent. The A10 Bishopsgate scheme was about introducing bus and cycle-only access to prevent other traffic using the A10 Bishopsgate corridor, and reallocating road space for walking, cycling and public transport passengers only. 

TfL Bishopsgate¬corridor Scheme Summary.

The judgement was:

"Ground 1: in making and promulgating the Plan and Guidance, the Mayor and TfL failed to distinguish taxis from “general traffic”. In doing so, they failed to have regard to relevant considerations, namely:

1. the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport, reflected both in law and policy;
2. the role played by taxis in facilitating accessible public transport for those with mobility impairments.

However, Ground 1 did not succeed in respect of the A10 Order.

Ground 2: In making the Plan and Guidance and the A10 Order, TfL and the Mayor failed to have proper regard to the public sector equality duty, pursuant to section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010.

Ground 3: The economic benefits which taxi drivers derive from their statutory licences, which entitle them to ply for hire throughout London, are a “possession” within the meaning of A1P1 ECHR, and so A1P1 is engaged. However, because of the way in which this challenge was formulated, and insufficient evidence, the Claimants failed to establish an interference with their possessions by control of use.

Ground 4: The Plan and Guidance and the A10 Order breached the Claimants’ legitimate expectation to pass and repass on London’s roads, and to use lanes reserved for buses.

Ground 5: The treatment of taxis in the Plan and Guidance and the A10 Order was irrational.

In my judgment, quashing orders rather than declarations are appropriate because of the nature and extent of the unlawfulness which I have identified, which affects not only taxi drivers, but also their passengers. The Plan, the Guidance and the A10 Order all need to be re-considered by the Defendants and substantially amended in the light of my judgment.    To reduce disruption, the Defendants can turn their minds to this task now, on a provisional basis, as there will be a stay and a delay whilst they pursue their appeal.  If the appeal is unsuccessful, they can apply for further time (if required) to finalise the proposed revised Plan, Guidance and Order before the quashing orders take effect."

A spokesperson from TfL who will now seek to appeal the judgement said to the BBC: 

"Temporary 'Streetspace' schemes are enabling safer essential journeys during this exceptionally challenging time and are vital to ensuring that increased car traffic does not threaten London's recovery from coronavirus."