My battle for Ladbroke Grove

When Boris Johnson was elected Mayor, he promised an end to Ken Livingstone's high-handedness. From now on, said Mr Johnson, there would be consultation and he would listen to what people said. For this new democratic start, he took the chair of Transport for London himself.

It hasn't happened. In April, some residents of the Ladbroke Grove district in west London discovered that TfL had awarded contracts to drive two new bus routes through the heart of the W11 historic conservation area, ostensibly to take people to the giant new Westfield Shopping Centre in Shepherd's Bush.

One proposed route (316) goes through Royal Crescent, near Holland Park roundabout, where largely empty double-deckers have already killed pedestrians; the second (228) goes through southern Ladbroke Grove, which has never had, needed or asked for a bus route.

Approached by alarmed residents, TfL said it would "consult" over the new routes. The resulting consultation was radically flawed. Leaflets were not addressed by name but posted anonymously like pizza fliers. The distribution focused, TfL admitted, on streets without bus services; many streets and thousands of residents were omitted. The attached map did not show existing routes and was inaccurately drawn and labelled.

Eventually, TfL sent three officers to meet us in the local church on 9 July. Of the 125 people there, only two wanted buses. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the local MP, told TfL that the legal onus was on them to prove a local need. He also pointed out that since the western extension of the congestion charge zone is also under "consultation", it would be wrong to drive hundreds of new buses a day through W11 until the congestion issue is resolved.

TfL's response to Sir Malcolm (after 13 weeks' consideration) was this: "The reasons for proposed routes 228 and 316 exist out of consideration of the congestion charging zone western extension. These bus service proposals are therefore being developed independently of congestion charge considerations." What does that mean? Anything at all?

The local residents did all we could to help TfL. We researched and illustrated how existing routes could be extended to provide the same service as that proposed for the new 228 but at a fraction of the cost to taxpayers and to the environment. We suggested a Westfield branded shuttle minibus. We pointed out and TfL accepted that the area was officially rated four stars out of five for its public transport provision already.

TfL's consultation figures took no account of the huge number of signatures on local petitions. TfL estimated, without saying how, that 200 people in southern Ladbroke Grove would use the service; we estimate, after extensive research, that the uptake would be in single figures. TfL also identified 53 people in North Kensington who, without committing themselves, liked the theory of a through route down Ladbroke Grove.

Suppose we are wrong and TfL is right. Suppose every one of these notional 253 people gets on board. TfL is imposing 10 buses an hour for 20 hours a day and each bus must, to meet TfL requirements, carry at least 50 people.

For this hypothetical (in our view non-existent) number of 253 people TfL is providing a minimum of 10,000 ten thousand bus seats daily. And you will all pay through raised council tax. It would be cheaper to provide each person with a private chauffeur.

We further pointed out that the existing buses on routes similar to that proposed for the 228 are underused. The 31, for instance, is often nearly empty. We explained that the handful of car journeys saved by a new bus would be overwhelmingly outnumbered by the 200 new smoky bus journeys each day. So there is no environmental saving: quite the opposite.

One of those leading the campaign against the imposition of the unwanted buses is Sir Angus Stirling, who was for 12 years director general of the National Trust and for many years chaired the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. He is particularly angered by TfL's high-handed disregard of the environmental issue and specifically by the fact that TfL did not commission an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the new buses.

In a strongly worded email to Belinda Danino, the TfL officer responsible, he wrote: "The general tone of TfL's response can be summed up in three words, 'We know best'. But this particular assertion that new buses will not add to congestion, pollution, noise and vibration is simply an insult. It is accepted practice today by any responsible authority to carry out an EIA when proposing controversial changes in conservation areas. The explanation as to why this was not done is special pleading of a high order. It should have been done."

Ken Livingstone consulted west Londoners about extending the congestion charge zone. Three-quarters voted against. Almost at once, he brought it in. Boris Johnson promised to be different. So we besieged him. I personally wrote and emailed him twice. He didn't answer.

Ladbroke Grove is not a fancy street. It's the workhorse of the area; its broad shoulders take the weight off the narrow streets parallel to it. But the southern end of the Grove is a tree-lined avenue with listed houses. It is, furthermore, squeezed tight between two Central line Tube stations and has hundreds of buses within two minutes' walk on Holland Park Avenue. But TfL will push 200 largely empty vehicles daily through a conservation area against the explicit wishes of its residents.

Why? The Westfield Shopping Centre, the largest in Europe and a powerful organisation, was obliged to improve the local Tube service. I don't know to what extent Westfield is financing the new bus routes because TfL officers refused to say. Conclude what you will. One thing we know for sure: the local shops of Portobello and Holland Park Avenue, already hammered by the congestion charge extension, will be further undermined.

Last week, Belinda Danino offered to "consult" us again. But, she said, she would be doing this second bit of consulting after TfL announced its decision (which it did on Wednesday): "The decision will be announced shortly and before our further meeting with you" were her words. It's hard to know at what level of irony or comedy such a letter is pitched.

At the meeting in July, Ms Danino and her colleagues seemed out of their depth, relying on a script about ongoing community transport hubs". But the argument is deadly simple. To justify new buses, TfL was required to show an overwhelming need and it has shown no need at all.

Now we are left, I suppose, with a legal option. Those fighting against the 316 route are considering going for a judicial review to establish that TfL has acted unconstitutionally. The group opposing the 228 is looking at how similar TfL bus proposals were halted by residents taking legal action in Brook Green.

This would mean, as I understand it, bringing an action against named TfL officials and members of the London Assembly. But it would be expensive to do so and it would cost council tax payers a lot to defend it. So let's hope not to go there. It would be better to sort this out with a due regard to the environment, to safety, to genuine local needs and to democracy.

How about it, Mr Johnson?