The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, R (on the application of) v Transport for London

The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, R (on the application of) v Transport for London

The works for phase one of the EWCS did not have significant adverse environmental effects as a whole, based on the evidence before the defendant at the relevant time. The defendant did not err in law or act irrationally in concluding that planning permission was not required. Relief was refused on discretionary...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: The Queen (on the application of The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association); Defendant: Transport for London
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Judicial Review, Discretionary Relief
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Judicial Review Discretionary Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen (on the application of The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association)

Claimant

Transport for London

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether construction of the East-West Cycle Superhighway (EWCS) constitutes development under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether construction of the EWCS is permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015
  3. 3 Whether relief should be granted if planning permission is required

Ratio Decidendi

The works for phase one of the EWCS did not have significant adverse environmental effects as a whole, based on the evidence before the defendant at the relevant time. The defendant did not err in law or act irrationally in concluding that planning permission was not required. Relief was refused on discretionary grounds, including delay and the statutory role of planning authorities.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed