Fuck Cars

12755 readers

982 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be Civil

You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speech

Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass people

Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topic

This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No reposts

Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

[meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
[article] for news articles
[blog] for any blog-style content
[video] for video resources
[academic] for academic studies and sources
[discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
[meme] for memes
[image] for any non-meme images
[misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories

Recommended communities:

!yimby@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

toaster@slrpnk.net

grue@lemmy.world

Toaster1@lemmy.world

104

Low-traffic neighbourhood scheme ruled unlawful in landmark decision (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 2 months ago by cm0002@lemmy.world to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 56 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The judge said that the council’s consultation process was lawful, though said some elements “could undoubtedly have been improved upon”. However, he said that the way the council considered input from engagement with the public was unlawful.

Maybe a summery would have been inorder since the title is quite an exaggeration.

[–] Jake_Farm@sopuli.xyz 15 points 2 months ago

WDAG had delivered a “detailed” 53-page presentation outlining its concerns about the scheme to a councillor, but Judge Smith said it was not clear whether it was then shared with officers making decisions over the scheme.

He said: “On the evidence, I am forced to conclude that, despite assurances to the contrary given to the claimant, the 53-page presentation did not form part of the council’s considerations in its decision to make the orders.

“It should have done. Its content was highly relevant to the issues being deliberated upon and thus it was a material consideration.

“The failure to have regard to it was a serious failing, rendering the decision to make the orders unlawful.”