Forum Topic

Camden Council agrees that ETO unlawful....when will Hounslow do the right thing?

See attached.  https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/london-borough-of-camden-agree-quashing-order-on-experimental-traffic-order/London Borough of Camden agree quashing order on Experimental Traffic OrderThe London Borough of Camden has agreed that an experimental traffic order (“ETO”) it made on 23 November 2020, covering Haverstock Hill and the surrounding area, should be quashed. The ETO would have led to works to increase cycling capacity but removal of a significant amount of resident parking.The claim was brought by Amit Shah, a local resident who was concerned about the adverse impact on disabled and elderly residents, as well as the impact on local businesses. The claim centred around the lack of engagement with local residents and businesses prior to the ETO being made.The claim was brought on two legal bases. First, that updated statutory guidance from the Department of Transport required engagement with local residents and businesses prior to an ETO being made, which was not carried out. Second, the scheme was in reality a permanent scheme and not one that was an “experiment”.Following the claim being issued, the Council agreed to withdraw the ETO, and subsequently agreed to an order quashing the ETO.Leon Glenister acted for the claimant, instructed by Lisa Foster of Richard Buxton Solicitors. For reports in the local press, please see further here and here.

David Riley ● 2084d14 Comments

Same in Sutton.As for LBH they remind me of the Republicans back home. When confronted with fact and evidence the plan is to bury their heads and subvert the system. Why let democracy, the law and decency get in the way when corruption can get the job done albeit temporarily?

David Lesniak ● 2083d

Yep. Hounslow Council doesn’t  ‘do’ democracy let alone community engagement. Despotism rules supreme.

Steve Taylor ● 2083d

Ealing Council too were meant to be in court today. They decided to pay costs to the resident group and run away to a later date in the year!

Nick Jenkins ● 2083d

Bit more to it than that, Nick.  They have made cosmetic changes to the LTNs apparently so they could claim the scheme that they were being taken to court over no longer existed. How devious is that?

Claire Moran ● 2083d

This is when the law fails us miserably. Just as the localcouncils are.  If only we could change supplier, they’d be out of budiness

Maggie Dodge ● 2083d

Story in Times today highlighting how LTNs displace traffic onto surrounding roads, and that this is typically from nice middle class roads to those with lower income groups. Exactly the same argument and that the mother of the child who died some years ago and where a new coroners inquiry recently put air pollution on the death certificate makes. Note that all the vocal advocates for these schemes in W4 either live on nice quiet roads or roads that have all traffic removed due to recent measures. Strangely enough they are silent on the impact of those in less unfortunates roads suffer, as the traffic from their quiet roads is displaced onto their roads. It is the same point made by the Ealing MP and the one that Hounslow and TFL are silent on.

Paul Green ● 2083d

Pro-LTNs still saying no impact on emergency services.Tell that to the patient waiting for an ambulance on Thursday: blue-lights got to the padlocked gate at the south of LTN25, failed to pen it, turned round, went all the way round the boundary and in at the top. Total delay 7 - 10 minutes to go maybe 250 yards. Who knows if that was life-endangering?Ealing say it has changed by introducing very limited blue-badge access and ANPRS (nothing like done yet) to help the emergency services. But that's obviously cosmetic and designed to evade the JR - which it did. The new ETOs mean residents could be stuck with this "pilot" for another 18 months. Taking us neatly to the next local elections....

Sara Nathan ● 2082d

About to be debated on LBC in the next hour 3-4pm

Julian Pavey ● 2082d

No debate is necessary. They ARE unlawful. The court has ruled!

Steve Taylor ● 2082d

TAYLORS LAW                 SORRY   

Julian Pavey ● 2082d

Thank you. Spot on Jules.

Steve Taylor ● 2082d

Are these judgements local as in only pertaining to Camden, Sutton etc.? In these cases someone took the council to court and won.  That could only happen here with the same conditions surely?  This would mean LB Hounslow have no reason to stop the scheme on the basis of these cases.  I would have thought given this is happening all over the country and comes from government may it not be more logical to ask the government to withdraw the scheme everywhere?  It is all frustrating I know and have experienced the results.  Carers running late all day every day. Clients getting medication and care late missing medical appointments. And that's the carers with cars.  The carers on buses are having to add 30 minutes to an hour to their daily timetables and are not paid travelling time.  that means they are on buses longer and more likely to get COVID19 which then is passed on to vulnerable clients.  Why are we always getting the results of bad government.  When COVID19 is manageable we need to sit down and discuss how decisions are made and who is responsible for what. For example national governments should not be allowed to enforce anything on a local authority which has not been fully discussed with the people in the area it will effect.  Someone sitting in a civil service office making decisions about an area that they have never seen should be told go and do the consultation and do it properly then start the scheme if people want it.  But not to have the money givers telling local councils how to spend and when to spend the money they give them would be a real treat.  What we have now is two forms of government with two sets of laws.  How anyone can do a consultation properly is beyond me.      I do however in consideration of the coming elections not foresee a mass vote against any Labour run council last time they lost it was down to independents.  Ideas of a big "purge" like vote are whilst amusing not at all viable in Hounslow.

Caroline Carney ● 2082d

Carers are entitled to be paid for travelling time between clients.https://www.unison.org.uk/care-workers-your-rights/They are also entitled to be paid the minimum wage but you won't find any politician mentioning that there is more than one rate and if they mention a rate it is the top one!  Some of the carers we had were youngsters who cycled (they couldn't afford cars) and the lowest minimum wage rate is £4.15 per hour.  It is not surprising why they sometimes wonder why they are bothering to do the job and it's just the feeling of letting a client down that keeps them going. You can see how this leads to a lack of continuity in care when they are moving on as soon as they can find something better.There are some decisions which need to be made by national government rather than local government.  Nobody ever wants to pay more tax! Or if they do they want to be able to control how it is spent...

Philippa Bond ● 2081d

The judgement is embedded in law now so Hounslow should scrap the scheme but they are digging their despotic heels in.

Steve Taylor ● 2081d