A COURT heard yesterday that BCP Council exercised an “abuse of power” by prematurely curtailing a traffic order, while the authority insists it is fair practice.

The legal challenge over the decision to curtail an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO) on Keyhole Bridge in Poole was heard virtually in the High Court, with a decision expected soon.

In July 2020, BCP Council introduced an ETRO to close Keyhole Bridge on Whitecliff Road to traffic to make the area around Poole Park safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

The trial closure was initially put in place for “up to 18 months”, with a review planned after six months.

Phrasing on a council document stated that the six-month period of consultation would end on February 21, 2021.

However, according to the Keyhole Bridge User Safety Group, this order was “unlawfully” curtailed on January 15 for “unjustified” reasons, before all residents could provide feedback.

Claimant counsel Piers Riley-Smith, who represented the safety group, said: “[BCP Council] have never identified or explained a reason why the ETRO was curtailed early. The only reason given is that Cllr Mike Greene had heard all responses he needed to hear.

“That is not a justifiable reason for curtailing the trial early.”

Representing BCP Council, respondent counsel Kate Olley replied that the decision was preceded by a “very intense measure of scrutiny” and that there was no evidence to suggest that the early removal of the trial would have changed the outcome to reintroduce traffic.

This is ridiculous."

 

She said: “[The decision] is not some sort of rubber stamp, it was instituted from a place of criticism. There were 438 responses overall, I don’t accept that people were waiting to respond, respondents expressed their views quickly.”

Confusion broke out during the meeting when both counsels’ were trying to ascertain whether or not the public were able to attend the scrutiny meeting in which Cllr Greene made the decision to curtail the order.

Ms Olley outlined that the public could watch but not speak, however they could notify an effort to make representation in advance.

Ms Justice Lang took exception to the confusion at one point stating, “this is ridiculous”.

The claimant counsel suggested that if the court quashed the council’s decision, a further six month reintroduction of the order would be fair in order to meet the original 18 month period allowed. That would, as Mr Riley-Smith outlined, allow “significant time” for the ETRO to fulfil its purpose.

The respondent counsel, however, believed that the reintroduction of an order would be “pointless” as a “lengthy consultation” had already been held, also mentioning the cost and disruption such measures could cause.

Ms Justice Lang concluded the meeting and stated that she would make a decision to either uphold the council’s decision or quash it and reintroduce the ETRO.