Court rules Tower Hamlets acted unlawfully in revoking Bethnal Green traffic scheme
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets acted unlawfully when it decided to revoke a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in Bethnal Green without following the statutory process required under transport legislation.
In the Court of Appeal of England and Wales proceedings handed down on 22 January 2026, the court allowed an appeal brought by Oliver Hawes, overturning a High Court decision that had dismissed his judicial review challenge.
The case concerned the revocation of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme implemented between January 2020 and March 2022, involving 14 road closures in Bethnal Green. The decision to remove the scheme was taken on 20 September 2023 by the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, following two rounds of public consultation. One road closure, on Canrobert Street, was retained.
The Court of Appeal focused on whether the council had breached its statutory duty under section 151(1)(a) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which requires London boroughs to implement proposals contained in an approved Local Implementation Plan (LIP) in accordance with the timetable set out in that plan.
Giving the leading judgment, Lord Justice Singh held that the statutory duty to “implement” a scheme approved within a Local Implementation Plan includes a duty not only to bring it into effect, but also to retain it unless and until the plan is lawfully revised. On that basis, the court concluded that Tower Hamlets could not lawfully remove the scheme without first obtaining approval for a revised Local Implementation Plan from the Mayor of London.
The court rejected the council’s argument that implementation was a one-off obligation which did not prevent subsequent removal. It held that the decision to revoke the scheme without revising the Local Implementation Plan was inconsistent with the statutory framework and therefore unlawful.
The appeal was supported on this point by Transport for London, which participated in the proceedings as an interested party and argued that boroughs remain bound by approved Local Implementation Plans unless they are formally revised.
However, the Court of Appeal dismissed the remaining grounds of appeal. It rejected arguments that the council had unlawfully failed to take the Local Implementation Plan into account as a relevant consideration, and that the consultation process had been so unfair as to be unlawful. The court found that the consultation exercises undertaken were lawful and that no re-consultation was required in relation to an alternative option that was ultimately not adopted.
The court indicated that the appropriate remedy would be a quashing order, setting aside the decision to revoke the scheme, subject to further submissions on relief.