A legal challenge against the decision to remove a set of
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) from a London borough has been struck down, after a
High Court judge ruled that the move was lawful.
Campaigners from Save our Safer Streets had argued that
Tower Hamlets mayor
Lutfur Rahman broke the law in
the way he decided to remove three LTNs in September last year.
But the council’s lawyer
accused the group of attempting “an impermissible interference with democratic decision making”.
The decision could have political and legal repercussions across the capital, as
it could set a precedent for boroughs who try to peel away from London mayor Sadiq Khan’s over-arching transport strategy.
All seven grounds argued by the pro-LTN campaigners were struck down, but the group said that they still intended to appeal against the ruling.
The three LTNs in question were located in Columbia Road, Arnold Circus, and Old
Bethnal Green Road - and all had stayed in place pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Mr Rahman had promised, in the manifesto on which he was re-elected in 2022, to “reopen our roads, and abolish the failed Liveable Streets scheme, which has seen emergency services and vulnerable residents’ access blocked”.
The Tower Hamlets mayor - who is the leader of his own political party, called Aspire - said he “welcomed” the court’s finding that his decision was lawful.
The LTNs were introduced in 2021 by the borough’s previous Labour mayor, John Biggs. They include cycle lanes, pocket parks, seating areas and large planters that prevent residential streets being used by through traffic.
One of the seven arguments made by the pro-LTN campaigners was that, despite Mr Rahman’s 2022 manifesto pledge to remove the LTNs, there was still a “failure to give adequate reasons” at the time of him taking the decision in 2023.
Mr Rahman said at the time that he was removing the schemes because they had a “divisive” effect on the local community, they displaced traffic onto “arterial roads”, they caused problems for residents running local businesses, led to concerns about ambulance access, and also caused difficulties for the council’s bin collections.
While the campaigners claimed these reasons were “unintelligible and inadequate”, the High Court’s Mr Justice Fordham concluded in a 31-page judgment that the borough’s mayor should be given “generous latitude for evaluative judgment and choice”.
The campaigners had also argued that Mr Rahman was in breach of a duty to provide “best value” for money for the borough’s residents, pointing out that removing the LTNs would cost £2.5m. But the judge ruled that the borough’s mayor was “informed in a legally sufficient way, so as to be able to make a decision having regard to cost and value”.
In addition, the council was accused of having run a consultation about the LTNs’ removal which was “so unfair as to be unlawful”. The campaigners said this was because an extra, “compromise” option - which would have kept some elements of the LTNs in place - was added in only after the consultation had already concluded.
But Mr Justice Fordham pointed out that this option was not the one chosen by Mr Rahman, and there was a lack of evidence in any case that it “could have captured unifying support from a polarised community”.
Transport for London had argued that Mr Rahman’s decision was at odds with the ‘local implementation plan’ (LIP) which had previously been agreed between the borough and London mayor Mr Khan. The judge concluded however that there was “no obviously relevant consideration as to the fact or contents of the LIP which was unreasonably omitted from consideration in the making of the decision”.
In a statement following the ruling, Mr Rahman said: “While LTNs improve air quality in their immediate vicinity, the previous Labour administration’s botched implementation of LTNs in Tower Hamlets caused traffic congestion on main roads. This led to complaints about increased air pollution and negative impacts on the health of many who live on main roads, which are predominantly working-class households.
“The gridlock traffic also caused severe delays to bus services, undermining efforts to boost public transport use - a crucial part of the strategy to reduce emissions – and concerns were raised about the impact on residents with mobility restrictions and on emergency services, including objections by the London Ambulance Service. The Labour administration’s mishandling of the implementation of the LTNs ended up penalising many working class residents, public transport users and others.
“I welcome the High Court’s ruling that the council followed the proper procedures. We had a responsibility to fulfil the democratic mandate from voters in the May 2022 election to reopen these three roads and we also held further consultations to ensure the views of all affected residents were considered.”
Jane Harris, from Save our Safer Streets, said the campaign was “extremely disappointed” by the ruling.
“We brought this judicial review as a last resort,” she said. “Our low traffic neighbourhoods are a major success story in a deprived area of London, virtually eliminating serious road injuries and improving air quality inside and outside the schemes…
“It’s important to note that the judge himself said that this case was not about the rights and wrongs of removing the scheme, just about whether the decision was legal. This decision has always been and still is a bad one - expensive, rushed and dangerous. We are deeply concerned about one council adopting a policy that is so at odds with what its own residents want, and with the transport policies of both regional and national governments.
“Our legal team has told us that we have grounds for an appeal. This application could cost about £30,000 more than we have already raised, if we go all the way to a hearing, so we are raising funds again at CrowdJustice.com. We hope people will continue to support us in this vital mission to keep Londoners safer and healthier.”
