• THE headline – Cycle lane set to stay, despite taxi drivers row – should more accurately have been: ‘Council wastes over £300,000 of council tax payers’ money’.

The article completely omitted the shocking news that, having spent well in excess of £300,000 of local people’s money on a four-week public inquiry, Camden Council has decided, completely contrary to the inquiry conclusions, to make the Tavistock Place east-bound route permanent.

The independent inspector recommended a west-bound route along Tavistock Place, having proved, with legally tested evidence, that the east-bound route had adverse impacts on cycling safety, and no positive impact on cycling numbers, pollution, health or modal shift to active travel (contrary to the council’s aims and claims).

West-bound one-way provides the same wide lanes for cyclists. It would have the added benefits of less displaced traffic and pollution on to residential streets and the restoration of a vital west-bound route, the only one between Strand and Euston Road.

The council, having known since November 2017 what the possible outcomes could be, and being aware of the inspector’s recommendations since May, procrastinated until September to make a decision (the date was changed three times). This provided a convenient excuse to say there was insufficient time to adopt the independent evidence-based conclusions.

No councillor attended the inquiry at all. If they had, they would have heard officers’ facts on traffic and air quality monitoring being systematically discredited. The inspector declared there was “a paucity of evidence” to support the east-bound trial.

The council says it will revisit and consult on the east-bound/west-bound question in the future but, in view of the council’s dismal record on flawed consultation, this promise does not provide residents with any confidence in a genuine possibility of change.

It is a disgraceful abuse of public money and public trust for the council to simply manufacture a way of side-stepping the recommendations and effectively act as if the inquiry had never happened. What is really behind this expensive and damaging decision?

NICKY COATES
WC1