City of London ‘monitoring’ taxi Streetspace ruling, including any ‘potential considerations’

The City of London Corporation (COLC) are ‘monitoring’ the Streetspace ruling whilst Transport for London (TfL) ponders its appeal against the road network plans deemed as ‘unlawful’ by a High Court judge.

The authority situated in the financial district of the capital, has also said it is monitoring any ‘potential considerations for the City’. The impact of the landmark ruling brought on by the licensed taxi industry is expected to have far reaching consequences not only across London, but potentially nationwide.

Controversially in 2018 the City of London Corporation’s (COLC) most senior decision-making body voted to make a 16-month experimental safety scheme at Bank Junction, which excluded wheelchair accessible taxis, permanent.

The COLC have since imposed further restrictions on a widespread section of roads across the Square Mile citing COVID-19 distancing requirements.

A City of London Corporation spokesperson told TaxiPoint: “The High Court judgment allows Transport for London (TfL) time to appeal. The City Corporation is monitoring the TfL case, including any potential considerations for the City.”

Last week, Lord Holmes of Richmond MBE said the decision to ban taxis from London’s Streetspace plans are similar to the ‘wrong-headed’ decision to ban black cabs from Bank Junction.

Lord Holmes, a former multiple gold winning British Paralympic swimmer and life peer in the House of Lords, also highlighted the essential role the fully accessible black cab plays in providing public transport for those with mobility impairments and the legal status taxis hold as a form of public transport.

In his blog, Lord Holmes said: “The scheme (Streetspace) is similar also to the recent, wrong-headed, decision to ban taxis from Bank Junction even though they had never been involved in an accident. If these schemes are approached, from the start, with the principle of inclusive design then they can be made to work for ALL.”

On 20 January a High Court judge found that the needs of disabled Londoners were “not considered", and described parts of the EQIA as “perfunctory or non-existent”.

The landmark judgement follows a judicial review mounted by the London taxi trade, challenging the Mayor of London’s and TfL’s Plan, associated Guidance issued to London Boroughs and the Order concerning a specific Streetspace scheme, the A10 Bishopsgate Corridor in the City of London, which removed taxi access to a key arterial route.

The Court has now ordered that the Streetspace Plan, Interim Guidance to Boroughs and the A10 Bishopsgate Traffic Order be quashed, following the judgement.

In a lengthy and detailed judgement, Mrs Justice Lang underlined a series of failings by TfL and the Mayor, describing their decision-making process as “seriously flawed”, with the decision to exclude taxis being based on “superficial” and “inadequate evidence”.

The Judge noted that denying taxis access to London’s roads could have “severe consequences” for passengers who cannot walk, cycle, or use public transport and that “the needs of people with protected characteristics, including the elderly or disabled”, were “not considered”, before the Plan was announced or the Guidance published.

A TfL spokesperson reacted to the court decision saying: “We are disappointed with the court’s ruling and are seeking to appeal this judgment. 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.

“We absolutely recognise the need for schemes such as our Bishopsgate corridor to work for the communities they serve and have worked hard to ensure that people across London, including those who use taxis, can continue to get to where they need to be. We also recognise the need for schemes to be delivered in a fair and consistent manner and have worked closely with the boroughs to create clear guidance for implementing schemes, updating this regularly to reflect what we have learnt. These schemes will stay in place pending our appeal."