Ali v London Borough of Newham

The claimant, a visually impaired resident, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Newham's local design guidance on tactile paving. The court held that the Department for Transport national guidance on tactile paving, produced after extensive research and with input from relevant organisations, carried significant weight and should be followed by local authorities unless they had clear and cogent reasons to depart from it.

The judge found that Newham failed to justify its departures from the national guidance — in particular its exclusion of tactile paving at uncontrolled crossings and its adoption of grey rather than red paving at controlled crossings — and did not demonstrate special local circumstances or adequate reasoning to override the national guidance. The judge also treated the public equality duty (section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, now section 149 of the Equality Act 2010) as an aspect demanding careful consideration when making such policy decisions. For these reasons the local guidance was unlawful and the claimant's challenge succeeded.

Background and parties: The claimant, Mr Mohammed Mohsan Ali, a visually impaired Newham resident and RNIB member, challenged Newham's July 2010 local design guide for tactile paving. The defendant was the London Borough of Newham. The national Department for Transport guidance on tactile paving (produced with RNIB and Guide Dogs) set out standard layouts, colours and locations for tactile surfaces.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The claimant applied for judicial review seeking declarations that Newham acted unlawfully in adopting the local guidance and for the quashing of that guidance.

Issues before the court:

• What weight should be given to the non-statutory national guidance on tactile paving and whether Newham was required to follow it or could lawfully depart from it;
• Whether Newham had given adequate reasons and had regard to its equality duties (section 49A DDA, now section 149 Equality Act 2010) when adopting its local guidance;
• Whether Newham's consultation, equality impact assessment and pilot schemes provided lawful justification for departing from the national guidance.

Court's reasoning: The judge considered the context and provenance of the national guidance, noting the high level of research, specialist input and specific consideration of competing interests (visually impaired pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with arthritis, etc.). Given that context and the national guidance's aim of long-term uniformity, the court concluded that local authorities must follow the guidance unless they could show good, cogent reasons for departure. Newham's explanations — reliance on limited consultation responses, pilot schemes, budgetary constraints, and asserted minor differences in local crossing construction — did not address the reasoned basis of the national guidance nor identify special local circumstances sufficient to justify departure. The court also emphasised the substantive nature of the equality duty and that it required rigorous consideration rather than perfunctory compliance. Having found no lawful justification for the departures challenged, the court allowed the claim.

Remedy: The claimant's judicial review succeeded and the local guidance was held unlawful; the judge indicated the claimant was entitled in principle to the relief claimed.

The claim for judicial review is allowed. The court held that the Department for Transport's national guidance on tactile paving, given its provenance and purpose, must be followed by local authorities unless there are clear and cogent reasons to depart; Newham had no lawful justification for its departures (notably omission of tactile paving at uncontrolled crossings and choice of grey rather than red at controlled crossings) and failed adequately to perform its equality duty. For these reasons Newham's local guidance was unlawful.