Sheakh, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Lambeth

Factual and Procedural Background

The Defendant, a London Borough local authority, introduced traffic regulation orders to create Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) aimed at promoting walking and cycling and restricting motor vehicle use within certain residential areas. The concept of LTNs had been under consideration since at least 2019, but the coronavirus pandemic accelerated their implementation due to reduced public transport usage and government encouragement of active travel.

The Orders were made under statutory powers allowing local traffic authorities to regulate traffic movement, including experimental traffic orders (ETOs) lasting up to 18 months. The Claimant, a disabled resident reliant on car transport, challenged several ETOs on grounds including alleged disproportionate adverse effects on disabled persons dependent on motor vehicles, procedural and consultation inadequacies, and failures to comply with statutory duties.

The Claimant’s challenges include judicial review proceedings and statutory review claims under Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (ROTRA). Some challenges were brought within the statutory six-week time limit for contesting traffic regulation orders; others were not and thus could not be quashed but could be subject to declarations regarding compliance with equality duties.

The local authority relied on statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State during the pandemic, which urged rapid implementation of active travel measures including LTNs. The authority conducted various equality impact assessments (EQIAs), some prior to and some following the making of the ETOs, and committed to ongoing monitoring and consultation during the experimental period.

The court was tasked with determining the legality of the ETOs and the authority’s compliance with relevant statutory duties, including the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 and the duty to manage the road network under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and ROTRA.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the experimental traffic orders (ETOs) creating the LTNs were genuinely experimental in nature and lawfully made.
2. Whether the Defendant complied with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in making the ETOs.
3. Whether the Defendant properly discharged its duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to secure the expeditious, convenient, and safe movement of traffic, balancing competing interests.
4. Whether the consultation undertaken by the Defendant complied with statutory requirements and was adequate in the circumstances.
5. The effect of statutory time limits and procedural requirements on the justiciability and remedy of challenges to the traffic regulation orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The ETOs were not genuinely experimental but in substance permanent measures introduced to avoid proper consultation.
• The public sector equality duty was breached because the Defendant failed to conduct adequate equality impact assessments before making the ETOs, particularly failing to consider disabled persons living outside the LTNs adversely affected by traffic displacement.
• The Defendant’s approach to equality assessment was piecemeal and retrospective, amounting to a “rearguard action” that came too late to satisfy the duty.
• Lambeth failed to undertake adequate “Tameside” enquiries to understand the impact on protected groups and did not consult relevant local disability organisations.
• The consultation process was inadequate and irrational, relying on consultation with a cycling charity that did not represent the full spectrum of disabled persons, and omitting consultation with local disability groups.
• The Defendant failed to properly balance competing interests under section 122 of the ROTRA, offering no evidence of a balancing exercise in the decision-making documents.

Respondent's Arguments

• The ETOs were genuinely experimental, consistent with statutory powers and government guidance encouraging rapid implementation of active travel measures during the pandemic.
• The public sector equality duty was properly discharged by having due regard to equality objectives, including through ongoing monitoring and future assessments during the experimental period.
• The decision maker had sufficient awareness of equality issues at the time of making the orders, and the duty does not require a formal assessment but due regard to equality matters.
• The balancing exercise required by section 122 of the ROTRA was inherent in the decision to introduce LTNs, with ample documentary evidence showing consideration of competing interests and the justification for favouring LTNs.
• The consultation undertaken complied with statutory requirements under the 1996 Regulations, including consultation with relevant organisations and provision for objections from the public.
• There was no basis for imposing additional consultation obligations based on a purported legitimate expectation arising from Secretary of State communications.
• Challenges to orders made outside the statutory six-week period cannot be quashed, and limited relief such as declarations on equality duty compliance may be possible but no such breach occurred.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
UK Waste Management Ltd v. West Lancashire DC [1997] RTR 201	Experimental traffic orders must be genuinely experimental; the authority must explain the nature of the experiment.	Court found the ETOs in the present case were genuinely experimental, distinguishing the facts from UK Waste Management which involved permanent closure of access to a single site.
Trail Riders Fellowship v. Hampshire CC [2019] EWCA Civ 1275	Section 122 of the ROTRA requires a balancing exercise between expeditious movement of traffic and local amenities.	Court held that the Defendant had performed the balancing exercise adequately, supported by documentary evidence including the Transport Strategy and decision reports.
R (Bracking) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345	Eight propositions clarifying the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, including the personal nature of the duty and the timing of assessments.	Court applied these principles to assess whether the Defendant had due regard to equality objectives, concluding that ongoing monitoring and phased assessment could suffice in the exceptional context.
R (Hollow) v. Surrey CC [2019] EWHC 618	The nature and timing of “due regard” depends on the stage of decision-making and the function exercised.	Court accepted the Defendant’s submission that the public sector equality duty was shaped by the experimental nature of the decisions and the rapid implementation context.
R (Law Centres Federation) v. Lord Chancellor [2018] EWHC 1588 (Admin)	Clarification of the public sector equality duty and the requirement for conscientious focus on statutory criteria.	Court referenced this case in considering the sufficiency of the Defendant’s regard to equality matters in decision-making.
R (Hurley) v. Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin)	Decision maker must be clear about equality implications and weigh them appropriately.	Used to emphasize that the Defendant’s decision maker must have properly considered equality implications at the time of decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the question of whether the ETOs were genuinely experimental. It rejected the Claimant’s argument that the ETOs were permanent measures disguised as experiments, noting the statutory framework allowing for TTOs and ETOs, the government guidance encouraging rapid responses during the pandemic, and the Defendant’s documented intention to monitor and assess the schemes over the experimental period. The court found the experiment to be real and ongoing despite limited current monitoring evidence.

On the public sector equality duty, the court accepted that the duty requires “due regard” to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations, but that this is a fact-sensitive inquiry shaped by the nature of the function being exercised. The court held that the duty is to have regard to equality objectives, not necessarily to complete formal assessments before decision-making.

The court found that the Defendant had given sufficient consideration to equality matters at the time of the decision to make the ETOs, including an acknowledgment that further detailed assessments and monitoring would follow during the experimental period. The decision to adopt a rolling approach to equality impact assessment was acceptable in the unusual context of the pandemic and rapid implementation. The Claimant’s particular concerns about disabled persons dependent on motor vehicles, although not fully anticipated at the time, did not amount to a breach of the duty.

Regarding section 122 of the ROTRA, the court concluded that the Defendant had performed the required balancing exercise between facilitating expeditious traffic movement and protecting local amenities. The court found ample evidence in the Defendant’s strategy documents and decision reports that the interests of through traffic and local residents were weighed, and that the LTNs were introduced with a clear rationale reflecting this balance.

On consultation, the court held that the Defendant complied with the statutory consultation requirements under the 1996 Regulations and that there was no obligation to consult the general public beyond the statutory objection procedures. The choice to consult a cycling charity but not a local disability organisation was not irrational, and the Claimant’s reliance on a purported legitimate expectation to wider consultation was unfounded.

The court also addressed procedural issues, affirming that challenges to traffic regulation orders must be brought within six weeks of their making and that the court cannot extend this time limit. Orders challenged out of time cannot be quashed, though limited declaratory relief on equality duty compliance may be arguable. The Claimant’s attempt to circumvent time limits by judicial review was rejected.

Holding and Implications

The court granted permission for the judicial review claim to proceed but ultimately DISMISSED both the judicial review and the statutory review challenges.

The court held that:

• The ETOs creating the LTNs were lawfully made and genuinely experimental.
• The Defendant complied with its public sector equality duty by having due regard to equality objectives in the context of rapid implementation and ongoing monitoring.
• The balancing exercise required by section 122 of the ROTRA was properly performed.
• The consultation undertaken was adequate and consistent with statutory requirements.
• Challenges brought outside the statutory time limits could not succeed.

The direct effect of this decision is that the challenged traffic regulation orders remain valid and enforceable. No new legal precedent was established beyond application of existing principles to the facts. The decision underscores the importance of context, particularly urgency and experimental nature, in assessing compliance with public law duties in the regulation of traffic schemes.