Purpose

In May 2020 modal filters in
the form of planters (which were in effect road closures preventing
access at specific locations within the residential cells) were
introduced across seven areas selected as Low Traffic
Neighbourhoods. These were introduced under Temporary Traffic
Management Orders (TTRO’S).
 
On 11 November 2021 a report
was presented to the Council’s Traffic Management Advisory
Committee (TMAC)recommending the seven Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
under TTRO’S be replaced with Croydon Experimental Healthy
Neighbourhoods (CHN’) under Experimental Traffic Management
Orders (ETMO’S). This report recommended the use of camera
related enforcement mechanisms.
 
On 30 September 2022 the
ETMO’S for six Experimental Croydon Healthy Neighbourhoods
came into force which included a statutory consultation period for
the first six months to receive objections, and to carry out
community engagements. Due to contractual and camera issues there
were no enforcement activities on the schemes, barring 1, until
November 2023.
 
On 14th February
2024, the Executive Mayor in Cabinet received recommendations  to make
permanent six Healthy Neighbourhood Scheme / Low Traffic
Neighbourhood (LTN) at Albert Rd, Dalmally Rd, Elmers Rd,
Holmesdale Rd, Parsons Mead and Sutherland Rd. Delegated authority
was given to the Corporate Director to implement the experimental
orders as permanent Traffic Management Orders. On 25th
March 2024, the Croydon (Traffic Movement) (Nos 1-6) Orders 2024
was made. A local resident lodged a statutory review claim in the
High Court that the orders were made for an unlawful purpose,
namely, to raise revenue. The Council resisted the claim. The
purpose of this report is formally to advise the Executive Mayor of
the High Court decision and to address the various issues
arising.    
 
In brief, the High Court found
that the dominant purpose for making permanent the traffic
management orders was the need to safeguard the revenue raised by
enforcement. For transparency the full Judgement is at Appendix
One.  This purpose was ruled unlawful
and consequently, the orders made were quashed. 
 
In these circumstances the
Council has two options namely (a) to appeal the judgement which
could take months or (b) to not appeal and to remove the schemes
with immediate effect. This report sets out the recommendation not
to appeal the judgement and consequently to remove the schemes and
cease all enforcement activities.
 
The Council will need to deal
with the issue of payments made whilst the schemes were in
operation. The Council is seeking legal advice on this
issue.

Content

For the reasons as detailed in
the Part A and Part B report and appendices, the Executive Mayor
AGREED to:
 
2.1       Consider the
findings of the High Court Judgement.
 
2.2      
Consider the legal advice on the High Court Judgement contained in
Exempt Part B and agree not to seek permission to
appeal.
 
2.3      
Note that the issue of payments made whilst the schemes were in
operation is being reviewed and legal advice is being sought on
this.
 

Reasons for the decision

The High Court found that the
dominant purpose for making permanent the traffic management orders
was the need to safeguard the revenue raised by enforcement. This
recommendation of this report seeks to address the issues arising
from the Judgement.

Alternative options considered

There are only two options: to
appeal or not to appeal.  The
recommendation is not to appeal and the reasons for that have been
set out.  This has also included an
analysis of the alternative.