High Court quashes low traffic neighbourhood schemes made permanent by London borough

In March 2024, the council made the Croydon (Traffic Movement) (Nos. 1-6) Orders 2024 as the traffic authority for roads in the borough pursuant to s.6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

The orders made permanent six Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes that had been trialled on a temporary basis since 2020.

In Lawrence, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Croydon [2026] EWHC 483 (Admin) Mr Justice Pepperall said: “The schemes close off certain roads. Originally roads were closed off physically but latterly the closures have been enforced by cameras and mitigated by a residents' permit scheme. Croydon claims that the temporary schemes were successful in leading to an improvement in road safety and air quality.”

The claimant, who lives and works in Croydon, was said to be "deeply concerned by the impact of the schemes and, together with other like-minded residents, formed the local pressure group, Open Our Roads.”

She argued that the schemes were unlawful in that Croydon exercised its statutory power to make the orders for an unlawful purpose, namely to raise revenue (Ground 1).

The claimant also argued that Croydon acted unfairly and contrary to her legitimate expectations in that the council failed adequately to deal with a central issue, namely the objection that the schemes had been introduced to raise revenue. (Ground 2).

Croydon resisted the claim.

Mr Justice Pepperall, who noted that the case had become “something of a procedural dog's breakfast”, said there was no doubt that the traffic scheme had raised significant revenue.

However, he added that this did not of itself make it unlawful; “the question is whether the authorised purpose remained the cabinet's dominant purpose”.

The High Court judge said the question for him to decide was whether he was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimant had succeeded in establishing that the dominant purpose of the decision was not lawful. “That, in my judgment, is a question of fact rather than law. In considering that issue, I take into account all of the evidence before me.”

The judge said it was “fair to say that the officer's report identified tangible, but perhaps modest, road safety and health benefits. It is not, however, for the court to weigh those arguments. That was a policy decision for the cabinet.

“If I were satisfied that the cabinet accepted the officer's recommendations for the reasons that he gave in his report and kept out of mind the illegitimate consideration of the financial benefit of the schemes then I would dismiss this claim.”

Mr Justice Pepperall noted that a Telegraph report from February 2024 was hearsay evidence of what the mayor, Jason Perry, said.

When approached for his comment upon his alleged U-turn (the mayor being against the schemes in opposition but changed his stance after being elected in 2022), Cllr Perry is reported to have said: "The decision to introduce [Low Traffic Neighbourhood] schemes was made by the previous administration before I was elected as mayor. The council's budget is predicated, partly of course, on that decision, and I do not feel that I am in a position to reverse it."

The judge said: “There has, however, been no attempt to gainsay that account and it is consistent with statements made by Councillor Perry both before and after his election as mayor. It comes to this:

1. Councillor Perry was a vocal critic of what he regarded as Labour's financial mismanagement of Croydon and was elected mayor on a platform that he would sort out the council's finances.
2. In opposition, he was a critic of the schemes but acknowledged that the council's budgets had been predicated in part on the basis of the anticipated revenue from the schemes such that he could not close them on day one of his administration.
3. In both opposition and office, he argued that he could not simply close the schemes because of the hole that would be left in the budget rather than arguing the positive road safety or health case for the schemes.
4. When asked after the cabinet vote, it is revealing that he did not extol the road safety or health benefits but that he essentially said that his hands were tied because of budgetary considerations.”

Mr Justice Pepperall concluded: “Taking the relatively modest benefits of the schemes into account together with the mayor's apparent lack of public enthusiasm for the road safety or health case for these schemes, and his clear and repeated comments before and after the vote as to his hands being tied by the budgetary considerations, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dominant purpose for these orders making the schemes permanent was the need to safeguard the revenue raised by enforcement. Such purpose was unlawful and I therefore quash the orders.”

The judge said that, given his conclusions on ground 1, it was unnecessary to consider ground 2.

Croydon Council and Open Our Roads have been approached for comment.