It's going to be difficult to produce definitive evidence about what exactly 4 car spaces means, so I suggest putting the burden of doing that on to the council. I'd go with something along the lines of:

"When I parked my car I read the suspension notice and diligently made sure that I left the required 4 car spaces behind me. If the council believe that there were less than 4 car spaces behind my vehicle at the time that I parked, I require the council to provide me with a copy of whatever evidence they have that proves this point (including their definition of the length of a "car space" and the legal argument they intend to make that justifies this definition) so that I can make an informed decision about taking this case to the parking tribunal."

Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

It seems that the argument I've made on Pepipoo in the past that a sign saying something like "Ultra low emission ULEZ zone" does not sufficiently convey the details of the restriction to motorists has been used successfully in court by well known lawyer Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452271/A-blow-ULEZ-expansion-plan-Scaffolder-wins-legal-ruling-signs-ultra-low-emission-zones-sister-scheme-not-lawful.html

The Daily Mail article is short on legal detail (and long on Khan-bashing), and this is actually a case about existing LEZ signage not ULEZ expansion signage despite the headline, but it does say "TfL insisted the signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport more than a decade ago and said it is investigating why certain evidence was not submitted." which hints to me that perhaps the Secretary of State did not actually sign off on the signs at all!

I expect this isn't the last we'll hear of Elevation Access Ltd v TfL.

Nothing in the first video that he couldn't have said in 2 minutes rather than 9. Is he really a trained barrister?

Trained in optimising monetisation, I expect. Youtube puts an extra set of adverts in videos that are longer than 8 minutes.