Local Government Lawyer


Local Government Lawyer

GLD March 26 Planning Lawyer Adhoc Banner 600 x 100 px 1

Newsletter registration

* indicates required
 
 
 
 
 
Practice/Interest Area(s) (tick all that apply)
  •  
Join our other mailing lists (tick to subscribe)

Local Government Lawyer, Info-Gov.uk and Public Law Jobs will use the information you provide on this form to send your requested newsletters and updates. Please tick the box below to authorise us to send the email newsletter(s) and alerts requested above.

 

 

You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices.

A High Court judge has dismissed a judicial review claim against the decision of Tower Hamlets to remove so-called ‘Liveable Streets’. Saira Kabir Sheikh KC and Daisy Noble explain why.

In Hawes, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2024] EWHC 3262 (Admin) the High Court dismissed a claim by a local resident against the decision of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets to pursue the removal of low traffic neighbourhoods in Bethnal Green, known as 'Liveable Streets'.

The decision to pursue the removal of the scheme was taken after two rounds of public consultation over a period of 18 months.

Fordham J dismissed all seven grounds of challenge, finding that the Mayor of Tower Hamlets’ decision to pursue the removal of the measures had been lawful. 

The grounds included a claim that the Mayor had acted in breach of section 151 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which requires the implementation of measures in a Local Implementation Plan (LIP), aimed at securing the objectives in the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy. TfL actively participated in respect of this ground, arguing that the duty to 'implement' measures was an ongoing one, such that any measures could not be removed unless or until such time that a revised LIP was approved by the Mayor of London. The Judge rejected the arguments of both the Claimant and TfL for a number of reasons, amongst them the fact that the timetable for 'implementation' within the LIP was not sufficient to render it a legally enforceable duty, and that the duty must be considered in light of the council's other statutory duties. In so finding, the Judge noted that TfL at no stage had raised the possibility that removing the scheme would be a breach of statutory duty in its responses to the consultations. 

The other grounds of challenge included challenges to the adequacy of the reasons provided; an alleged breach of the 'duty of best value in section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999; the adequacy of consultation; and irrationality. 

The duty is of particular interest in respect of when the duty to re-consult arises in relation to an alternative developed as a result of consultation responses and the relationship between the duty to give reasons and rationality.

Saira Kabir Sheikh KC and Daisy Noble are barristers at Francis Taylor Building. They acted for the successful defendant, London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Sponsored articles

LGL Red line

Unlocking legal talent

Jonathan Bourne of Damar Training sets out why in-house council teams and law firms should embrace apprenticeships.

Poll


 

Past issues

Local Government


Governance (subscribe)


Housing (Subscribe)


Social Care and Education (subscribe)

 


Place (subscribe)

 

Wales (subscribe)

Directory

Directory