Oliver Hawes, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Where a London borough has implemented proposals in an approved local implementation plan, section 151(1)(a) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 imposes both a positive duty to implement them and a negative duty not to remove them inconsistently with the approved plan. Implement includes retaining the approved scheme. Removal therefore requires the statutory revision process and the Mayor of London’s approval. A further consultation is not automatically required whenever officers develop an option after consultation. The question is whether proceeding without consultation on the difference would be so unfair as to be unlawful. Here it was not, particularly because the new option was not adopted.

The appellant challenged the decision of the Mayor of Tower Hamlets to revoke a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in Bethnal Green, retaining only one road closure. The scheme had been implemented after being included in the borough’s approved local implementation plan.

Fordham J dismissed the judicial review claim: [2024] EWHC 3262 (Admin). The appeal concerned whether revocation breached the statutory implementation duty, whether the borough failed to have regard to the local implementation plan, and whether fairness required re-consultation on an alternative option developed after the consultation.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed on the statutory implementation issue. The grounds concerning failure to have regard to the local implementation plan and failure to re-consult were rejected. Subject to written submissions on remedy, a quashing order appeared appropriate.
2. The judge below had asked the wrong question by focusing on whether the implementation duty could be enforced through a mandatory order if the scheme had not been implemented. The scheme had in fact been implemented. The correct question was whether section 151(1)(a) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 required the borough to retain it.
3. In its statutory context and having regard to the legislative purpose, implement means implement and retain. Section 151(1)(a) therefore includes a negative duty not to act inconsistently with an approved local implementation plan. Removing the implemented scheme without following the statutory process for revising the plan, including approval by the Mayor of London, was unlawful.
4. The interpretation did not require the borough to maintain the scheme until 2041 or prevent future consultation and revision. The statutory duties had to be read harmoniously. The borough’s traffic-management duties under section 16(1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 remained relevant, but the statutory regime required any change to be pursued in an orderly manner. Normal public-law reasonableness was not the only constraint.
5. The failure-to-have-regard ground was strictly unnecessary to decide. If it had been necessary, it would have failed. The Officers’ Report referred to the Mayor of London’s transport strategy and evaluated the scheme against its objectives and competing objectives captured by the local implementation plan.
6. On re-consultation, the governing question was whether fairness required a further consultation, assessed by the nature and extent of the differences between the consulted proposals and the decision intended. The change had to be assessed at the time, not with hindsight. The authorities, including R (Moseley) v Haringey London Borough Council [2014] UKSC 56 and Keep Wythenshawe Special Ltd and Others v University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust and Others [2016] EWHC 17 (Admin), did not make every post-consultation refinement subject to re-consultation.
7. Two consultation exercises had occurred. Consultees had been able to make alternative suggestions, and officers had conscientiously considered the responses. The precise details of Option 3 could not have been predicted, but its development was a foreseeable consequence of consultation. Option 3 was not adopted by the Mayor, and the process was not so unfair as to be unlawful.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 24, the appeal was allowed on the section 151(1)(a) issue and rejected on the other two grounds.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Fordham J dismissed the judicial review claim in [2024] EWHC 3262 (Admin).