London borough acted unlawfully in removing low traffic neighbourhood without mayoral approval, Court of Appeal rules

Tower Hamlets has since vowed to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

In Hawes, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 24 (22 January 2026), Lord Justice Singh, Lord Justice Arnold and Lord Justice Miles all agreed that the London borough breached a duty in relation to the implementation of a ‘Local Implementation Plan’ (LIP).

A local implementation plan is a plan prepared by a London borough council containing its proposals for the implementation of the Mayor of London's transport strategy in its area.

Tower Hamlets’ LTN scheme had initially been implemented in 2020, under the council's former mayor, John Briggs.

The LIP, which was approved in 2019, included plans for "Love your neighbourhood", which were later combined to become the LTN network.

The current mayor, Lutfur Rahman, decided to remove the routes in September 2023.

However, a local campaign group named 'Save Our Safer Streets' said the decision would be expensive, unpopular, and harmful for residents’ health and safety.

Oliver Hawes launched a judicial review challenge on behalf of the group, which was heard in the High Court in November 2024.

Fordham J ultimately rejected all seven grounds brought against the London borough, leading the claimant to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant advanced three issues in the Court of Appeal.

Singh LJ rejected issues two and three, but allowed the first ground to advance, which concerned whether the council’s decision to revoke the scheme breached its duty to implement its third Local Implementation Plan (LIP) under section 151(1)(a) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

On this ground, he said he was “particularly impressed” by the submissions from Transport for London (TfL), which appeared as an interested party in the proceedings.

TfL argued that the High Court judge’s error was to ask himself the wrong question.

Summarising the argument, Singh LJ wrote: “His analysis focused on whether, if the Respondent had failed to implement the Scheme in accordance with the LIP either in time or at all, the Mayor of London could enforce its duty to implement the Scheme in accordance with the LIP pursuant to section 151 by obtaining a mandatory order by way of judicial review (as opposed to, for example, exercising his powers under section 152).”

The judge said that the “correct question” was whether Tower Hamlets was under a duty to retain the scheme by virtue of section 151, with the consequence that its decision to remove the scheme without obtaining the Mayor of London's approval of a revised LIP was unlawful.

“In other words, what Ms Kilroy submits is that, as well as the positive duties in section 151, there is a negative duty not to act inconsistently with an LIP which has been approved by the Mayor of London,” the judge said.

He added: “The answer to that question turns on whether ‘implement’ in section 151 means ‘implement (but without any obligation to retain)’ or ‘implement (and retain)’.

“The Judge appeared to accept that there could be an obligation to retain but seems to have considered that it was necessary for that to be spelt out in the LIP itself.

“In my judgement, that is unnecessary because it is, with respect, obvious that the concept of ‘implement’ in its statutory context includes an obligation to retain an approved scheme.”

He concluded that, having regard to the statutory context and purpose, ‘implement’ must mean ‘implement (and retain)’.

“Accordingly, the Respondent's decision to remove the Scheme without going through the statutory process for revising it, including the approval of the Mayor of London, was unlawful,” he said.

He later said that the appropriate remedy would be a quashing order. Arnold LJ and Miles LJ both agreed.

A spokesperson for Save Our Safer Streets said: “Thousands of local residents will be extremely pleased and relieved that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the decision to remove our popular Low Traffic Neighbourhood was unlawful.

"This is a victory for local people who came together when they saw that their community stood to lose the safer streets they really value. This means the Mayor of Tower Hamlets must now accept that our safer streets are here to stay and he should look for a better use of £2.5m of public funds."

A spokesperson for Tower Hamlets Council said: “We are disappointed with the ruling, not least because previously the courts have ruled in our favour. We will review the judgment which has significant implications across London, and we will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.”

Adam Carey