Trade bodies waived right to DVS inquiry, says Transport for London

A public inquiry (PI) which could have rejected the Direct Vision Standard (DVS) was not held because Logistics UK and the RHA withdrew their formal objections, according to TfL.

Both trade associations refute the notion that they ever withdrew their objections to the scheme.

A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is necessary to implement schemes such as the DVS. By law a PI must be held if the Amendment Order prohibits the loading or unloading of vehicles of any class at all times and receives statutory (ie non-frivolous) objections.

The minutes of a London Councils Transport and Environment meeting on 13 June 2019 record that the Freight Transport Association (now Logistics UK), the RHA and two transport operators made ‘statutory objections’, stating: “Those respondents have been contacted …and they have clarified in writing that their representations are not objections or in one case, withdrawn their objection.”

RHA director of policy Duncan Buchanan said he had no record of such a communication. “We’ve always opposed the Direct Vision Standard… We’re aware of this development and we’re looking into it.”

Read more

• “Too little too late” – less than 20% of HGVs comply with Direct Vision Standard as deadline looms
• Direct Vision Standard – a good idea at the worst possible time?
• New TfL ‘allow list’ will help operators avoid Direct Vision Standard penalty charges

Logistics UK will not share its communication with TfL, nor clarify whether it dismissed the need for a PI.

It said: “We confirmed to TfL at the time that our objection was with the scheme in principle, not to the wording of the TRO.”

MT has submitted a freedom of information request for these communications.

However TfL said: “We took a wide view of what was an objection to our Direct Vision Scheme including any objection to the scheme itself or to the concept and principle of the TRO, including its wording. We prepared for a public inquiry to be held if objections were made and not withdrawn. We communicated with … [objectors] to ask if they would like them to be considered by a public inquiry and they all confirmed that they didn’t.”

At a PI an independent inspector representing the Secretary of State would have tested the purpose, evidence base and objections to the DVS scheme and made recommendations as to its implementation or rejection.

If TfL’s claims that the objections were waived prove mistaken, then there may be grounds for a judicial review into DVS.