The following story was published on 24th December in Enfield Independent, CLICK HERE:

Council loses Angel Road court case

[.......]The High Court dismissed the council’s judicial review over the minimum service requirements for Angel Road station [...], on Monday, 21 December. 

In September 2015 the Department for Transport issued potential bidders for the franchise currently run by Abellio Greater Anglia, a Train Service Requirement, [Invitation to Tender,ITT] setting out the minimum number of services to be provided at each station

Enfield Council were unhappy because the Requirement did not specify a service of four trains per hour throughout the day for Angel Road, which they expected. Instead, four trains per hour would only run during the evening peak hours, meaning that the station is likely to be served by fewer trains at other times of the day.

The Council’s challenge alleged that the ‘failure’ to guarantee four trains per hour throughout the day was unlawful because it did not deliver on ‘legitimate expectations’ from assurances given by Department for Transport officials, and did not account from the planned “Meridian Water” housing scheme on Angel Road.

These arguments were dismissed by the High Court for not being strong enough to demand more trains 

A competition is underway to select the company that will take over the operation of services when Abellio’s franchise comes to an end in October 2016

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Statement was issued by Monkton Chambers acting for the Department of Transport, CLICK HERE

The High Court has today dismissed Enfield Council’s judicial review of the Department for Transport’s minimum service specification for the ongoing East Anglia rail franchise competition.

[.....]
In September 2015 the Department for Transport issued to intending bidders for the franchise an Invitation To Tender (ITT), to which was attached a Train Service Requirement document setting out the minimum services to be provided at each station. Enfield Council issued a judicial review claim challenging the ITT because, contrary to the Council’s expectation, the Train Service Requirement did not specify a service of 4 trains per hour throughout the day for Angel Road train station. Instead, the Train Service Requirement specified a service for Angel Road station reaching 4 trains per hour only during the evening peak hours, meaning that the station is likely to be served by fewer trains at other times of the day.
The Council’s challenge alleged that the ‘failure’ to specify a service of 4 trains per hour throughout the day was unlawful because it breached the Council’s legitimate expectations arising from certain assurances given by Department for Transport officials. The Council also alleged that the Department for Transport was unreasonable in basing its service specification on economic modelling that took account only of transport-related costs and benefits, and therefore did not give any weight to the risk to the viability of a new housing development project (known as the ‘Meridian Water’ scheme) in the Angel Road area in circumstances where a 4 trains per hour service was not provided. The Council also argued that, by not taking account of that risk to a development that could make available a significant number of new ‘affordable homes’ in London, the Department for Transport had breached its duties under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012.

__________________________________________________________________________________

It seems relevant to the initiated, that since the service frequency expectation of 4 train per would serve stations in adjoining Boroughs with stations in LBHaringey at Tottenham Hale, Northumberland Park and LBWaltham Forest ,Lea Bridge, expected opening May 2016 the judicial review makes no mention of the disbenefits to the population of these LBoroughs and footballers going to the new enlarged Tottenham Hotspur Stadium

__________________________________________________________________________________