TfL's Streetspace Blunder: Why Taxis Were Excluded

London's iconic black cabs are an integral part of the capital's transport network, renowned for their accessibility and the unparalleled knowledge of their drivers. Yet, when Transport for London (TfL) and the Mayor unveiled their ambitious 'Streetspace' plans to transform London's streets, a critical omission became glaringly apparent: taxis were seemingly ignored. This oversight led to a significant legal challenge, culminating in a successful Judicial Review that has profoundly impacted the future of urban planning in London and highlighted the crucial role of all public transport modes.

The Streetspace programme, launched with the stated aim to "rapidly transform London’s streets to accommodate a ten-fold increase in cycling and a five-fold increase in walking," was presented as a bold step towards a greener, more active city. While these aspirations are laudable, the implementation, as scrutinised by Mrs Justice Lang, overlooked key considerations, particularly concerning London's Hackney Carriages. The core issue, as the court found, was TfL's belief that it possessed an untrammelled discretion to exclude taxis, a belief that proved erroneous both in fact and law.

The Streetspace Vision and Its Controversial Omission

At its heart, the Streetspace plan sought to reallocate road space, creating wider footpaths and an extensive cycling network, alongside measures to reduce general traffic on residential streets. The vision was clear: to encourage active travel and reduce reliance on private vehicles, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, amidst these grand designs, the specific and unique status of Hackney Carriages within London’s public transport provision was conspicuously absent from TfL’s deliberations. Despite their capacity to take passengers remaining undiminished by the pandemic – unlike buses and trains – and their recognition by the NHS and many individuals as a safer way to travel, taxis were not only sidelined but actively restricted in many of the new schemes.

This exclusion was not merely an administrative oversight; it represented a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of taxis, particularly for those with mobility impairments or other accessibility needs. Hackney Carriages are legally mandated to be wheelchair-accessible and provide a door-to-door service that is indispensable for many vulnerable Londoners. To bypass their inclusion in a comprehensive transport strategy was, as the Judicial Review would reveal, a significant misstep.

The Landmark Judicial Review: Challenging TfL's Authority

The legal challenge against TfL and the Mayor’s Streetspace programme was brought by Darren Rogers of Chiltern Law, acting on behalf of claimants who argued that the exclusion of taxis was unlawful. Mrs Justice Lang presided over the case, delivering a judgment that not only quashed key aspects of the Streetspace plan but also set an important precedent for future urban planning decisions. Her refusal to grant leave to appeal underscored the strength of the claimants' case and the depth of the flaws identified in TfL's approach.

The headlines from the judgment were stark and unequivocal:

• The London Streetspace Plan was quashed.
• Transport for London’s “Interim Guidance to Boroughs” was quashed.
• The A10 GLA Roads (Norton Folgate, Bishopsgate and Gracechurch Street, City of London) (Temporary Banned Turns and Prohibition of Traffic and Stopping) Order 2020 (“the A10 Order”) was quashed.

These decisions collectively dismantled the legal foundation of the Streetspace initiatives, forcing TfL to reconsider its approach. Mrs Justice Lang's statement that TfL “considered it had an untrammelled discretion to exclude taxis, which was erroneous both in fact and law” encapsulated the core of the problem and the unlawfulness of their actions.

The Five Grounds of Challenge: A Detailed Breakdown

The Judicial Review proceeded on five distinct grounds, each meticulously examined by Mrs Justice Lang. Her rulings on these grounds provided a comprehensive indictment of TfL’s decision-making processes.

Ground 1: Material Considerations

This ground argued that the A10 Order was made without proper regard for several crucial factors: the legal status of Hackney Carriages, their role in providing accessible public transport, TfL’s network management duty, and the possibility of achieving the same objectives without restricting taxis. While TfL was made aware of the concerns, Mrs Justice Lang found that there was no evidence they actually took into account the distinct status of taxis as a form of public transport. The assessment was too narrowly focused on congestion, air quality, and road safety, largely overlooking the unique position and needs of taxis. Consequently, Ground 1 succeeded in respect of the overarching Plan and the Guidance, though not for the specific A10 Order.

Ground 2: The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)

A critical failure identified was TfL’s disregard for its obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), enshrined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This duty requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not. Mrs Justice Lang concluded that “the Mayor and TfL did not have proper regard to the public sector equality duty in making the Plan, the Guidance and the A10 Order.” This was a significant finding, as the exclusion of accessible Hackney Carriages disproportionately affects disabled and elderly individuals who rely on them for essential travel. This ground succeeded for the Plan, the Guidance, and the A10 Order, underscoring a systemic failure to protect vulnerable groups.

Ground 3: Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) of ECHR

This ground raised concerns about a disproportionate interference with the rights of Hackney Carriage drivers and industry stakeholders under A1P1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. While Mrs Justice Lang acknowledged that A1P1 was engaged, she ultimately found that the claimants had not established an interference with their possessions by control of use. Therefore, despite being arguable, this ground did not succeed.

Ground 4: Legitimate Expectation

The claimants argued that Hackney Carriage drivers had a legitimate expectation that they would be able to pass, repass, and ply for hire along carriageways used by London buses, particularly on routes like Bishopsgate. This expectation stemmed from historical practice and policy. Mrs Justice Lang concluded that “the Mayor and TfL have not shown that there was an overriding public interest which justified the frustration of the taxi drivers’ legitimate expectation.” This finding highlighted that while public bodies can alter policies, they must provide compelling justifications for doing so, especially when existing expectations are strong. This ground succeeded, reinforcing the importance of consistent policy application or well-reasoned changes.

Ground 5: Irrationality (Wednesbury Sense)

Finally, the claimants contended that the decisions made by TfL were irrational in the Wednesbury sense – meaning they were so unreasonable that no reasonable public body could have made them. Mrs Justice Lang agreed, stating, “I conclude that the decision-making processes for the Plan, Guidance and A10 Order were seriously flawed, and the decisions were not a rational response to the issues which arose as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.” This powerful conclusion indicates a fundamental breakdown in the logical and evidence-based reasoning expected from a public authority, granting success to this ground.

Why Were Taxis Excluded? The Core Failures

The judicial review laid bare the reasons behind TfL's decision to exclude taxis, pointing to several key failures:

• Misconception of Taxis as Mere Traffic: TfL consistently viewed taxis as general traffic rather than a distinct and vital form of public transport, akin to buses or trains. This fundamental miscategorisation led to their exclusion from public transport-focused planning.
• Failure to Acknowledge Unique Status: Despite being informed by the LTDA (Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association) of the legal and policy status of taxis, TfL failed to apply its mind to this significance. The Bus Lanes policy, for instance, which often allows taxis, was ignored in the context of the new schemes.
• Ignoring Accessibility Needs: A major oversight was the failure to consider the specific needs of disabled and elderly people who rely on accessible Hackney Carriages. The PSED findings were particularly damning in this regard.
• Presumption of "Untrammelled Discretion": TfL operated under the mistaken belief that it had absolute freedom to exclude taxis without proper justification or consideration of their public transport role.
• Lack of Rational Response to COVID-19: While the pandemic prompted the Streetspace plan, the decisions made were deemed not a rational response, especially given that taxis maintained their capacity and were considered a safer travel option than other public transport modes during the crisis.

Darren Rogers, representing the claimants, aptly summarised the ruling: “This was a hard fought and complicated Judicial Review where the regulated took on the regulator and sets a precedent when authorities close roads without proper analysis and care. Untramelled discretion must be scrutinised and reviewed. Mrs Justice Lang’s judgement lays bare the unlawfulness of Streetspace as a plan and in practice.”

Summary of Judicial Review Outcomes

To provide a clear overview, here's a summary of how each ground of challenge fared:

What Happens Next? The Road Ahead

Following this decisive judgment, TfL and the Mayor will undoubtedly seek leave from the Court of Appeal to challenge Mrs Justice Lang’s ruling. However, the judge herself noted, “I do not consider that the Defendants have a real prospect of success on appeal, for the reasons I have set out in my judgment. Nor is there some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.” This strong statement suggests a difficult path ahead for TfL in overturning the judgment.

The immediate consequence is that the quashed orders and guidance remain invalid. Any future plans for London's streets will need to be developed with a far greater degree of consideration for all forms of public transport, including Hackney Carriages, and with scrupulous adherence to legal duties, particularly the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the TfL Streetspace plan?

The TfL Streetspace plan was a programme launched by Transport for London and the Mayor to rapidly transform London's streets, primarily by reallocating road space to significantly increase cycling and walking infrastructure. It aimed to create wider footpaths, new cycle lanes, and reduce general traffic, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why were taxis excluded from the Streetspace plan?

Taxis were excluded largely because TfL considered them as general traffic rather than a distinct and accessible form of public transport. The judicial review found that TfL believed it had an "untrammelled discretion" to exclude them, failed to consider their unique legal status, their role in accessible transport, and did not properly regard its Public Sector Equality Duty.

What is a Judicial Review?

A Judicial Review is a type of court proceeding in the UK where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. It's not about whether the decision was "right" or "wrong" in a policy sense, but whether it was made legally, fairly, and rationally, following due process and legal obligations.

What does it mean for a plan or order to be "quashed"?

When a court "quashes" a plan, order, or guidance, it means that the legal decision or action is declared invalid and has no legal effect. It's as if the decision was never made. In this case, the London Streetspace Plan, TfL’s Interim Guidance to Boroughs, and the A10 Order were all legally nullified.

What is the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)?

The PSED is a legal duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It requires public bodies, when making decisions or developing policies, to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic (like disability, age, race, etc.) and those who do not. Failing to consider the PSED can lead to a decision being found unlawful, as it was in this case regarding accessible taxis.

What is "Legitimate Expectation" in law?

Legitimate expectation arises when a public body has made a promise or adopted a consistent practice that leads an individual or group to reasonably expect a certain outcome or treatment. If the public body then deviates from this promise or practice without compelling justification, it can be challenged through judicial review. In this case, taxi drivers had a legitimate expectation to use certain routes, which TfL unlawfully frustrated.

What are the wider implications of this judgment for urban planning in London?

This judgment sets a significant precedent, reminding public authorities that they cannot act with "untrammelled discretion." Future urban planning and transport schemes must undertake thorough analysis, consider all forms of public transport, and rigorously adhere to their legal duties, especially concerning accessibility and equality. It reinforces the principle that all journeys, and all passengers, truly matter.

If you want to read more articles similar to TfL's Streetspace Blunder: Why Taxis Were Excluded, you can visit the Transport category.