08-07-2025
Camden Council to fight trans colours legal challenge
A woman is threatening to bring a legal challenge to have four road crossings painted in the transgender colours removed. The road markings at Tavistock Place and Marchmont Street in Bloomsbury, central London, were installed by Camden Council and have been in place since 2021. Camden resident Blessing Olubanjo argues that the installations are unlawful political messaging and infringe on her rights as a council said they were "a visual statement to help celebrate transgender awareness and act as a reminder of the rich LGBTQ+ history and daily life in the Bloomsbury area and across Camden".
'Supporting the LGTBQ+ community'
Ms Olubanjo, who is a member of the Christian Peoples Alliance party, said she had sent a pre-action letter to the council and unless the road crossings were removed or repainted she would begin judicial review proceedings.A judicial review would decide if the council followed the correct legal procedures and acted within its Council said it had received the letter and it "entirely rejects" its arguments.A council spokesperson said: "Camden is 'no place for hate' and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough. "We fight discrimination in all its forms and this includes being an ally to our trans residents."The coloured road crossings - the white, pink and blue stripes are representative of the trans community - were first installed in 2021 to mark Transgender Awareness the time the council said the installation of a painted crossing using the flag of the transgender community was "an important step in supporting the LGBTQ+ community within our public realm".
'Contested ideology'
Ms Olubanjo argues that the crossings are breaches of equality and safety obligations and a violation of laws prohibiting political publicity by local case is being supported by the Christian Legal Centre. It said her legal team cited a section of the Local Government Act 1986 which prohibits councils from publishing material that appears to promote a political party or a politically controversial crossing, they argue, is a form of "publication" under the Act, designed to influence public opinion on a divisive political Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "Not only is this crossing a matter of public safety and Christian freedom, it's about the misuse of public resources for political campaigning. "The crossing is a visual endorsement of a contested ideology, installed by a public authority in breach of its legal duties. This is not the role of local government."Public spaces should be able to be used by everyone, not to advance divisive agendas that alienate people of faith and those who hold to biological reality."
In her letter Ms Olubanjo also said the crossings were "a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty due to known risks to disabled and neurodivergent individuals".In council documents from 2021, it said there had been "a small number of concerns raised around disability access of coloured crossings, particularly regarding those with visibility impairment".It said the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) stated it had concerns with "non-standard" crossings as they could cause confusion. The council documents state: "Officers consider that the crossing is sufficiently simple to mitigate these concerns."The RNIB told BBC London: "Ninety-three percent of blind people have some sight. Black-and-white stripe designs on pedestrian crossings offer high contrast, which is particularly important for people with low vison who need to stay on course when crossing roads."Colourful crossings won't always be recognised as a crossing point, which is a particular issue for guide dogs."
