Forum Topic

Low-traffic zones unlawful, High Court rules

Latest news from Croydon:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g77gq24wro'Six Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in south London have been ruled as unlawful by the High Court as they were mainly in place to raise money'.Who'd have thought it!

Peter Evans ● 44d14 Comments

“A Labour council forced to scrap an illegal Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) is being taken to court for creating an “unlawful” cycle lane.Legal papers accuse Lambeth council of “erring in law” by approving a £1m bike lane in south London that could increase traffic congestion and pollution while damaging the health of pedestrians.The West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG), which represents residents and businesses, claims the local authority only considered how the scheme would help cyclists, ignoring adverse effects on the wider community.High Court documents claim town hall bosses failed to obtain planning permission for the Brockwell Park to Gipsy Hill cycle lane which will cross the busy South Circular Road.The 26-page skeleton argument says the cycle lane “includes the effect of increased air pollution in Rosendale Road (arising through slower moving and increased traffic…) on the health of pedestrians and residents …”.Plans ‘suggest a closed mind’It claims elements of the council’s decision-making process “suggest a closed mind” or “a logical gap or error of reasoning which critically undermines [the cycle lane’s] legality”.It is the second High Court challenge WDAG has brought against the authority. In 2025, the group won a High Court battle after a judge ruled that Lambeth had unlawfully introduced its West Dulwich LTN after ignoring the “legitimate” concerns of residents that the scheme would increase traffic and adversely affect air quality.The court heard that some council staff were granted “wellbeing leave” after encountering vehement public opposition to the scheme. The council scrapped the LTN after the ruling.”

Steve Taylor ● 20h

“ Croydon council was ordered to scrap six LTNs after a High Court judge ruled that its primary motivation was to generate cash rather than reap “relatively modest” environmental benefits.It has now agreed not to appeal against the judgment and will scrap the schemes, which close roads to out-of-borough drivers.The south London authority, which has been repeatedly declared effectively bankrupt, will pay back fines issued over two years from March 2024.The total money owed is expected to run into millions of pounds. Council documents showed that town hall bosses expected to make a £10.7m surplus from fines if the six LTN schemes had operated from 2023 to 2027.However, a Freedom of Information request revealed that CCTV enforcement of the LTNs had raised £1.4m for the council in just one month.”

Steve Taylor ● 28d

In fact there are more LTNs coming our way in LBH by the looks of it. A number of CCTV cameras have been installed around Brook Road South with a note that they are to monitor traffic in the area. It is another step of the anti-car establishment to "justify the need" for an LTN in the area in the near future.

Alex Shpinkov ● 42d

In fact there are more LTNs are coming our way in LBH by the looks of it. A number of CCTV cameras have been installed around Brook Road South with a note that they are to monitor traffic in the area. It is another step of the anti-car establishment to "justify the need" for an LTN in the area in the near future.

Alex Shpinkov ● 42d

Personally I find this concerning with regard to LBH's recent budget approval based on revenue from these schemes.That doesn't bode well.

David Lesniak ● 42d

It will deter dimwitted Councils from even dreaming of implementing any more LTNs.

Steve Taylor ● 43d

It might be, but Croydon Council was declared bankrupt (AFAIK) and so I wouldn't hold my breath.It might happen ( and, if the LTNs were illegally implemented absolutely it's the correct thing to happen) but like Donald Trunp's tariffs that were declared illegal (unconstitutional?) whether the money gets paid back isn't a dead cert.

Andrew Jones ● 43d

Great news for people fined for using these LTNs“ London council that used LTNs to unlawfully make money 'must refund millions in fines to drivers'”

Steve Taylor ● 43d

There is a time limit of 3 months after a decision to submit a claim for judicial review of the decision so given the low traffic neighbourhood schemes in Hounslow, Fishers Lane in Ealing etc. have been in place for about 5 years, objectors would be a bit late.Clearly a political party could run with a manifesto to remove them.... Lutfhur Rahmans Aspire party in Tower Hamlets tried that, then they lost a judicial review so couldn't remove LTNs as that would breach council responsibilities for transport strategy and schemes which had been paid for by TfL. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3kkven14no

Michael Robinson ● 44d

Laila Cunningham has committed to making London a better place to live for EVERYONE, not just a few privileged manipulators. We’ll see these harmful LTNs removed and we’ll see unused cycle lanes removed to enable faster motorised traffic and, obviously, we’ll see crime reduced, especially crime against women and girls and the crimes perpetuated by Grooming Gangs. All issues that Kahn has failed / refused to tackle.

Steve Taylor ● 44d

Obviously he couldn’t admit to any benefits in reducing traffic for the wider community because there aren’t any. Only the very few people living in LTNs would see a reduction of traffic in their street. I look forward to Laila Cunningham tackling this issue when she becomes mayor.

Steve Taylor ● 44d

I realise that ‘making the world a better place’ as a justification for questionable road schemes seems to trump ‘we need the money’, whatever the real reason!Maybe worth a quick scour of Ealing/Hounslow council minutes/statements to check?

Peter Evans ● 44d

Of course, you haven't explained the reasoning behind the court's ruling.The schemes were put in place by a Labour administration in Croydon which was subsequently replaced by a Conservative administration at a following election.  The Conservative leader of Croydon was repeatedly asked why he wasn't removing the schemes when he had opposed them, so he came up with the reason that they needed them for the money.  He couldn't admit that there may be benefits for reducing traffic.Other than demonstrating the Conservative leader of Croydon isn't very clever to get the council into what the judge described as a "procedural dog's breakfast", I don't see any implications for other councils unless they have an equally stupid leader (which some undoubtedly will have).All a council needs to do is have a policy for reducing traffic in residential areas then assuming they follow proper process for introducing the LTN, there isn't anything a court can do because it isn't up to the court to determine council policy for this.

Michael Robinson ● 44d

Finally some common sense and legal justice.

Steve Taylor ● 44d