Sophia Bouchti v London Borough of Enfield
[2022] EWHC 2809 (Admin)
Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea & Anor., R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
14 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 536 (Admin)
High Court
People sued the council for removing bike lanes without properly consulting them first, and for making an irrational decision. The judge said the council didn't have to consult everyone and that their decision, although unpopular, wasn't unreasonable.
Key Facts
- •Claimants challenged the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea's decision not to reinstate temporary cycle lanes on Kensington High Street.
- •Cycle lanes were initially installed in September 2020 under the Active Travel Plan but removed in December 2020 following objections.
- •The council reconsidered the decision after receiving numerous representations, including from the claimants.
- •The council's Leadership Team ultimately decided not to reinstate the cycle lanes but to commission research into post-Covid transport patterns.
- •Claimants' judicial review raised grounds of failure to consult and irrationality.
Legal Principles
There is no general common law duty to consult.
R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Justice and others [2014] EWHC 1662 Admin
A duty to consult may arise if there's an established practice of consultation or if failure to consult causes conspicuous unfairness.
R (Plantagenet Alliance Ltd) v The Secretary of State for Justice and others [2014] EWHC 1662 Admin
Even if a duty to consult arises, the public authority has discretion in how the consultation is carried out; flaws don't automatically make it unlawful.
R (Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] Env. L.R. 29
Gunning/Sedley criteria for adequate consultation: proposals at formative stage, sufficient reasons given, adequate time for response, and responses conscientiously considered.
R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168
For a breach of a promise to consult, unfairness amounting to an abuse of power must be shown.
R (L) and another v Warwickshire County Council and another [2015] EWHC 203 (Admin)
If a public body chooses to consult, it must do so properly.
R (MP) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2020] EWCA Civ 1634
The sufficiency of information to reach a decision is a matter of judgment for the elected decision-maker.
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014
Outcomes
Judicial review application dismissed.
The court found no common law duty to consult and that the council's process, while informal, wasn't clearly and radically unfair. The decision was also not deemed irrational.
Similar Cases
Carol Gurajena & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham
[2024] EWHC 1745 (Admin)
Michael James Daw & Ors, R (on the application of) v Staffordshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 963 (Admin)
Whiteside, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1806 (Admin)
Hayle Town Council, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council
[2023] EWHC 389 (Admin)