High Court update: renewal application filed - next stage underway
We have now formally filed our renewal application with the High Court, asking for an oral permission hearing. This is a recognised step in judicial review proceedings, particularly where the issues are complex.
An oral permission hearing allows our barrister to present the case in person, respond to the judge’s questions, and properly test whether the claim is arguable and should proceed.
Encouragement from Tower Hamlets
Two weeks ago, the Court of Appeal ruled that Tower Hamlets Council acted unlawfully when it attempted to remove three Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in east London, in part because it failed to re-consult and failed to properly take statutory duties into account.
That case was not about whether LTNs are a good or bad policy choice. It turned on the responsibility of councils to comply with the legal standards that apply when major transport decisions are made, revisited or reversed.
The judgment is encouraging! It shows that courts are prepared to intervene where councils fail to consult lawfully or do not properly engage with their statutory duties. We are heartened by that - and we hope our supporters are too.
The focus of our renewal
Our renewal application concentrates on three core issues, which we continue to believe are properly arguable and deserve to be examined by the court:
Consultation
We argue that the consultation process was not lawful, including because the public were not properly consulted on the principle of imposing a charging scheme of this nature and scale, and because a strong impression was given that the outcome was pre-determined.
Equalities
We argue that the Council failed to properly discharge its Public Sector Equality Duty, including by relying heavily on material prepared for earlier schemes rather than carrying out a rigorous assessment of who would be affected by this particular scheme, and how.
Traffic management duties
This ground follows from the above: if consultation and equalities duties were not lawfully met, then the lawfulness of the decision-making as a whole is undermined.
This case is not party political. It is about whether the Council complied with legal standards that exist to protect the public when schemes of this scale and impact are pursued. The court is not being asked to decide whether the policy is a good idea, but whether it was pursued lawfully.
Why it matters that we stop this “congestion charge”
It is worth repeating that this case is not just about stopping an unfair £5 daily charge - although that alone would matter, given the very real impact this scheme is already having on many residents’ lives.
If this “congestion charge” proceeds, it clears the path for the full, originally planned traffic filter scheme: £70 daily fines imposed at the same locations, using the same infrastructure and enforcement systems. The Council has been clear that this is the intended trajectory.
What happens next
If the court grants an oral permission hearing, further legal work will be required to prepare for it, including refinement of arguments and preparation of hearing bundles.
We are continuing because this case raises serious issues of process, accountability and democratic standards. In the current climate - nationally and internationally - it matters that public bodies act within their legal powers, and that they are held to account when they do not. The local scale of this issue is no different.
As ever, we are deeply grateful to everyone who has supported this challenge so far. Thank you. If you are able to donate again, or to share the campaign with others who may wish to help, it makes a tangible difference at this stage. We are three private individuals formally bringing this case, and we can only continue with public support.
We will continue to provide updates as the case progresses, and we remain committed to pursuing this transparently and responsibly.