Court of Appeal quashes decision to remove low traffic neighbourhood
Public law & judicial review, Planning & environment, Local government
Court of Appeal quashes decision to remove a low traffic neighbourhood as a breach of the duty requiring London borough councils to “implement” proposals in their local implementation plan.
In a significant Judgment for those interested in transport planning in London, the Court of Appeal has today (reversing the decision of the High Court) quashed a decision by Tower Hamlets LBC to remove a large low traffic neighbourhood scheme (“LTN”) in Bethnal Green, London on the basis that that the decision was taken in breach of s.151(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (“GLAA 1999”): R (Hawes) v LB Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 24.
Key Findings
- London Boroughs may not remove transport schemes included within their local implementation plan (once those schemes have been installed) without seeking and obtaining approval from the Mayor of London for a revision to their LIP
- A decision to remove a transport scheme included within the LIP without a revision to their LIP will be a breach of the duty in s.151 GLAA 1999
The s.151 duty requires London borough councils to “implement” the proposals in their “local implementation plan” (“LIP”), LIPs being the means by which borough councils implement the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy. The Judgment illustrates the force of the s.151 duty and is likely to have significant repercussions for London borough councils, particularly where they are considering the removal of measures included in their LIP whose objective is to deliver the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy.
In this case, the LTN in question comprised a variety of road closures and other measures intended to reduce vehicular traffic and improve walking and cycling access. The scheme was part of the Council’s LIP and had been introduced between 2020-2022 under a previous administration. In 2022, a new Mayor of Tower Hamlets was elected who, as part of his manifesto, had committed to removing the LTN in question (and others). Having carried out two consultations in respect of the proposed removal, the Mayor of Tower Hamlets eventually decided to remove the scheme in September 2023.
Transport Strategy
The Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy was made (pursuant to the duty in s.141 GLAA 1999) in March 2018 and includes a variety of objectives, including that London’s Streets should be healthy, that more Londoners should travel actively (i.e. walking/cycling) and that traffic on those streets should be reduced. By s.144 GLAA 1999, the Council was obliged to prepare a LIP containing its proposals for implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The Bethnal Green LTN was one such measure included within the Council’s LIP. By s.151 GLAA 1999, the Council was thereafter obliged to implement the proposals in its LIP in accordance with the timetable provided within the LIP. The Bethnal Green LIP was thereafter introduced pursuant to that duty.
The Council argued that it was entitled to remove the scheme on the basis that, having installed it pursuant to the s.151 duty, that duty did not thereafter require the Council to retain the scheme in perpetuity. The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held (see paras 50-53 of the Judgment) that the duty on a London borough to “implement” the measures in the LIP necessarily included the “retention” of those measures once installed and that any decision to remove the scheme without going through the statutory process for revising the LIP, including the approval of the Mayor of London, was unlawful.
Implications
While the Judgment clarifies that London borough councils must retain schemes included within their LIP once installed (absent any revision to the LIP), it leaves open a number of other questions in respect of the nature and scope of the s.151 duty. In particular, while the issue did not arise on the facts of this case, the extent to which a Council may be obliged to implement those schemes within their LIP which have not been installed in accordance with the timescales set out within the LIP remains unclear.
Jack Parker appeared on behalf of the Appellant, instructed by Ricardo Gama at Leigh Day.
If you would like any further information about this Judgment or its potential implications, please contact Jack.
