Appeal Court explains Bishopsgate streetspace decision, calling original ruling “seriously flawed”

The Appeal Court has explained why it decided a judge was wrong to describe a scheme that created extra space for cyclists and pedestrians at the start of the pandemic as “extreme” and declare it illegal.

The Standard reports that three Appeal Court Justices said Mrs Justice Lang’s ruling that Transport for London’s Bishopsgate scheme was “seriously flawed” was “misconceived” and must be overturned.

Transport for London won its appeal in June against a ruling that its Streetspace scheme to close roads to cars was unlawful.

In a 34-page judgement the three appeal justices, led by Lord Justice Bean, said it was “extraordinary and not right” to condemn the measures as “extreme or ill considered” and  said there was “no proper basis” to consider the scheme as “irrational”.

The Standard quotes them as saying, “Each was in accordance with the policy not only of the Mayor and TfL but also of the Secretary of State for Transport of encouraging walking and cycling rather than other means of travel.

“They were not universally popular, but we think it would be extraordinary and not right for a court to condemn them as extreme or ill-considered, especially during the pandemic.”

Judges also ordered the two organisations representing the black cab trade that brought the initial case to pay TfL’s legal costs in full, with an initial £50,000 due within a fortnight.

(Graphic – Transport for London)


Related Stories


All the latest highways news direct to your inbox every week day

Subscribe now

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.