"If they were so confident about the result then why did they not go ahead with the hearing in June 21?"Michael - having followed the case, I believe, like in any dispute, the parties were instructed to seek agreement before trial/review and that was ongoing since LBH was dragging its feet, hence the trial date was set back. That's not unusual. One Chiswick could have been waiting for the outcome of other JRs, but as you have indicated, that can be a double-edged sword depending on which way they go, so I doubt that would be a strong driver of the delay."The Cycleway 9 works were temporary and using an experimental traffic order so they were always going to be changed."Michael - that's just not true - the point of an ETO is that it is simple to make it permanent, as LBH did with Fisher's Lane, for example, but to do that you need to get it right first time, which LBH evidently didn't on C9. LBH then withdrew the first ETO for C9 and replaced it with a second one, which would effectively kill off the litigation against the first. Given the nature of the second ETO, I think they did this because they expected to lose the judicial review. The case against LBH was largely that they failed to conduct equalities assessments, and looking at the papers, that's true, as they basically had no defence on that point. If you then look at the second ETO, and in particular the so-called "consultation" promised by Hanif Khan last summer, you will see that it is inundated with equalities analysis. They weren't going to get caught twice. That, from an outsider's perspective, is what happened to the JR, and all those papers are available for you to read if you want.Interestingly, I think Ealing messed up on Fishers Lane in exactly the same manner - ie they completely forgot to do equalities analysis when they closed it during Covid. There is no evidence of it in Ealing cabinet papers at all, but there was for every other ETO. So, like Hounslow, Ealing pulled the original ETO and implemented the permanent closure with a new traffic order that was swamped with equalities analysis and considerations.Basically, LBH and LBE both messed up with the original ETOs, but were lucky enough to have a second stab at getting it right."Perhaps you can tell everyone what happened to the more than £40k that OneChiswick Ltd claimed they had raised."Isn't that obvious - presumably spent on legal fees (I'm pleased to say!). But the bigger question is - how much did LB Hounslow spend defending an action that was brought against it because its executive and officers had missed out an essential and basic element of analysis in the original traffic order? That is the question that you, as a Council Tax payer - and all others about to vote - should be asking, since that spend was unnecessary and avoidable if LBH was doing its job properly. It wouldn't surprise me if your friends Curran, Lambert, Khan and Dunne similarly spent £40k on unnecessary legal fees - have you asked them?
Amanda Smith ● 1606d