London borough defeats legal challenge to decision to make “low traffic neighbourhood” permanent

The London Borough of Enfield has successfully defended a wide-ranging High Court challenge to its decision to create a permanent “low traffic neighbourhood” in its area.

The council is the traffic authority for the borough for the purposes of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ("the RTRA").

On 2 March 2022 Enfield made a series of related Permanent Traffic Orders under section 6 of the RTRA. The effect of these was to create a "Quieter Neighbourhood" or "Low Traffic Neighbourhood" in respect of Fox Lane, Enfield and the surrounding roads by restricting the flow of traffic through those roads.

The relevant orders made permanent the arrangements which had been put in place by a series of Experimental Traffic Orders which had (subject to some modification) been in force since September 2020.

The claimant in Bouchti v London Borough of Enfield [2022] EWHC 2809 (Admin) lives a little outside the area subject to the orders but has been adversely affected by them. She challenged the orders by way of statutory review pursuant to paragraph 35 of schedule 9 to the RTRA.

The claimant advanced seven grounds of challenge to the orders.

Mr Justice Eyre said: “In summary she says that there were procedural failings flowing from the council's failure to comply with the requirements laid down in the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ("the Regulations"); deficiencies in the consultation which the claimant says the council conducted; and a failure by the council to have regard to its duties under sections 45 and 122 of the RTRA and/or a failure as required by the latter of those provisions to conduct a proper balancing exercise to assess the effect of the proposed orders on "the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic".

“In addition it is said that the involvement of two of the council's members and two of its officers in the Better Streets for Enfield campaign group meant that the decision was approached with a closed mind or that there was a real risk or appearance that such had been the case. Finally, there is said to have been irrationality in the decision linked with a breach of the council's Tameside duty to obtain the necessary information to make the decision properly.”

Enfield accepted that there were some errors in the process although it did not accept all of those asserted by the claimant. However, it denied that such failings as there were caused substantial prejudice to the claimant.

The council denied the other contentions saying that it was not required to disclose further information to the claimant for the purposes of consultation; that it had proper regard to the relevant statutory duties and carried out an appropriate balancing exercise; that the decision to make the experimental orders permanent was approached with an open mind; and that there was no basis for the assertion of irrationality.

Mr Justice Eyre found against the claimant on each of her grounds and dismissed the claim.