Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) council has been ordered by a High Court judge to reopen a consultation into its decision in March to allow motorists to once again drive through Keyhole Bridge in Poole, which had been made a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians when motor traffic was banned there in August last year.
The application was made by local campaigners the Keyhole Bridge Group, who crowdfunded more than £12,500 for the challenge – although the council has now also been ordered to pay the group’s legal costs.
> Campaigners seek funding for legal challenge to removal of Poole active travel scheme
After the hearing last month, Mrs Justice Lang said that there had been “a breach of procedural legitimate expectation”, and that “the procedure which was adopted [by the council] was significantly less favourable to the public, in particular to supporters of the closure of Keyhole Bridge.”
She said there had been “a failure to take into account material considerations” due to the council ignoring submissions to the consultation after closing it early.
The judge also ordered the council to pay £20,000 towards the costs incurred in bringing the action, and to undertake a full consultation lasting six weeks from the end of February.
Cycling UK, which is seeking a judicial review of the decision of West Sussex County Council to remove a temporary cycle lane in Shoreham By Sea, welcomed the judgment.
The charity’s head of campaigns, Duncan Dollimore, said: “Too many councils over recent months have almost made their own rules up when determining the future of their government funded cycling and walking schemes.
“Justice Lang’s decision should be a salutary warning to them, and that they must follow proper process.
“However, it is disappointing that it is down to local volunteers and campaign groups to hold councils to account when government guidance on promoting active travel schemes is clear,” he added.
A spokesperson for Keyhole Bridge Group said: “We are delighted with this decision. It is notoriously difficult to win a judicial review but the council’s decision to renege on its promise to run a full consultation was so clearly unlawful we were confident we would succeed. The council must have understood this.
“We’ve always been willing to negotiate a solution and this ruling makes it clear the council was reckless with council tax funds in not accepting our offer and pressing on with the case.”
Add new comment
8 comments
The best bit from the ruling, which seems to have been missed in the article, is:
The outcome is that the Council will have to reopen the consultation for a further 40 days (in February/March next year), then review the results, with the final decision going to Cabinet rather than to Councillor Greene (the portfolio holder for transport and sustainability who made the original decision).
This means that the decision will not be made by one bloke who blatently doesn't get the sustainability part of his job title.
That 'Share Space' sign in the second photo is a joke. I can't imagine any of those queueing car drivers will wait to let the pedestrians through any time soon!
We have a similar 'Share with Care' sign in our pedestrianised high street where cycling IS allowed (Leatherhead) and almost every time I cycle through (with care obvs) some old biddy gives me the evil eye or tells me to get off my bike!
Good news. But as is usually the case with judicial reviews where the public body loses, the judgment is that the process was unlawful, rather than the decision itself. So there's nothing to stop them coming to the same decision again, provided the process is not flawed again. Let's hope not, though
And also don't forget that when the council loses and is fines, really it's taxpayers that foot the bill and not those that acted contrary to the law.
A great, if not conclusive, decision by the judiciary; maybe they aren't all car-loving fuddy-duddies. Hopefully this will go on to reverse the council's decision to reopen to drivers, and this will set a precedent, with other councils then forced to reverse their pro-car decisions.
Brilliant that the council had to pay the legal costs of the protestors too, but I won't be asking for a refund!
I have a small bet with myself that this won't feature in any msm, just like the corruption on Transport Day at COP26, and unlike the death of the inventor of tiramisu.
Not exactly a win, more of a stay of execution. But good nonetheless.
Brilliant result!
I'm surprised they decided to allow cars back there when there is perfectly good main roads that run the same distance into the town centre. And at worst, for the few who live and work next to the bridge, to get to the other side via a different route is less then a mile driving.
I'm sure the millionaires living on Sandbanks didn't persuade the council it is better for them.